View Full Version : Is age discrimination OK?
Apparently it is when it's the Government doing the discriminating...
Just the latest example...
David Cameron suggests cutting housing benefit for under-25s (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18567855)
So... What's the difference between a 24 year old in need of help & a 25 year old?
billmoseley
24-Jun-12, 16:39
not sure it an age issue here but the amount of our money that maybe being incorrectly to this range of people. lets just see what happens before we get on our high horses about it. After all it is our money he could be saving
linnie612
24-Jun-12, 16:39
Aha - its a year, innit!
not sure it an age issue...
If it's not an age issue how can you arbitrarily draw a line in the sand like that?
Apart from the obvious answer of "its a year", what is the difference in need of a 25 year old compared to a 24 year old?
linnie612
24-Jun-12, 16:46
A saving of almost £2bn a year?
a 25 year old will need more candles for his birthday cake,so the more candles you need for a cake,the bigger the cake you need,the bigger the cake you eat,the bigger the trousers you need,etc....etc...etc
If it's not an age issue how can you arbitrarily draw a line in the sand like that?
Apart from the obvious answer of "its a year", what is the difference in need of a 25 year old compared to a 24 year old?
Reduce the sum given to all on housing benefits by 2 billion and share the load rather than single out the 24 year olds.
This is probably another one of david camerons big ideas come next week he will be back pedaling the idea he has no back bone
I don't know what has happened to this UK. There has, as long as I have been around, been a welfare system to look after those that are in need. All the people I have ever known that have received benefits, it has been as a last resort. Nowadays, it is different. It seems and all we ever talk about is what benefits everyone gets. If you can't afford a house and a family until you get a job. Get a job. That is the way it always was. Why has it, need it change?
I know we live in an area where there is a shortage of work. Lots of areas are the same. Mine was growing up. Guess what? You can move, it is allowed.
There will always be people in dire need. But who decides who this is? It was never an issue in the past because if you didn't need, you didn't ask!
I think family and individual values have gone completely to pot. I blame successive socialist govenments.
Who do you blame?
billmoseley
24-Jun-12, 19:09
i blame ourselves for letting people who don't really need it get away with it. I'm with you on this Ducati. When i was young we never had much money but my father would never ask for any thing but we were fed housed and clothed and o guess what happy. there at least 2 generations now that think the government is a bottomless pit of money that it is their right to have.
The housing benefit budget is sky high largely due to the lack of affordable housing, If you are working an earning a low wage and on the waiting list for a council house you have no chance - Successive governements have made sure of that by selling off social housing by the shed load.
Remember all you "get a job" commentators that most people ( last figures i saw showed 55%) who receive housing benefit are actually working. Especially in the south east where rents are sky high. Move to get a job? Absolutely you should if you can but how are you supposed to live if you cant afford a private let, cant get a council property and cant afford to buy and cant get housing benefit because you are 22? After selling off a huge number of council houses and other social housing young people who live on their own for whatever reason and earn low wages have no option but to rent privately and therefore need to claim housing benefit. If you are a couple starting out - both working and cant afford to buy and cant get council property and cant get housing benefit what do you do? Single parent leaving a relationship? Someone estranged from their parents? Someone suddenly paid off from their work?
In the time you were talking about Ducati - young people COULD afford to buy a house and could even get a council flat if they needed one. I married in 1986 and we bought a house - I was earning £5500pa and my husband £5552pa and the house cost £17,750 - an attractive 2 bedroomed stone end of terraced house in a nice area. i think it is much harder these days.
Housing benefit should be paid to those who NEED it regardless of age.
oldmarine
24-Jun-12, 21:18
I don't know what has happened to this UK. There has, as long as I have been around, been a welfare system to look after those that are in need. All the people I have ever known that have received benefits, it has been as a last resort. Nowadays, it is different. It seems and all we ever talk about is what benefits everyone gets. If you can't afford a house and a family until you get a job. Get a job. That is the way it always was. Why has it, need it change?
I know we live in an area where there is a shortage of work. Lots of areas are the same. Mine was growing up. Guess what? You can move, it is allowed.
There will always be people in dire need. But who decides who this is? It was never an issue in the past because if you didn't need, you didn't ask!
I think family and individual values have gone completely to pot. I blame successive socialist govenments.
Who do you blame?
ducati: You make a good point here. But what happens when the government runs out of money and already tax their citizens too much?
ducati: You make a good point here. But what happens when the government runs out of money and already tax their citizens too much?
Somebody's going to lose their free money allowance.
Do not get me started.........Person living ina 4 bedroom bungalow alone divorced getting the mortgage paid, bad back....Children will inherit something far wrong with the system eh?>>>>>>>........
Housing benefit doesnt pay mortgages. You can get SMI which covers some of the interest on mortgage payments if you are on a means tested benefit I think. There was some talk of putting a charge on properties where people recieve SMI for over 2 years but im not sure if that has happened.
Fault on both sides from where I stand.
A, There are certainly a small minority of the population taking advantage of the safety net the country provides.
B, We seem to have a goverment who are currently doing their best to penalise the poor and the average to an extent not seen since the 1980's and are doing their best to forge a divide and conquer tactic on many things.
2 billon is chickenfeed compared to the amount we give away to overseas causes better to spend here than overseas. Whats 2 billion about 50 pence on pensions. WOW........
Interestingly a recent survey suggests that most people think that at least 50% of benefit claimants are screwing the system - fraudulently claiming JSA or disability benefits. The figure is actually around 2-3%. Does this not suggest that people have a completely wrong idea about benefit claimants? Perpetuating this myth is in the government's interest as it makes people think they are doing something good instead of simply hitting the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
So... First off they are going to force people with a spare room downsize or face a cut in housing benefit, so the kids leave home, parents downsize, no room for the kids, Government removes housing benefit for the kids, tells them to move back in with the parents, parents have no room for the kids because the Government made them downsize...
Is it just me or is there something fundamentally wrong & contradictory with the thinking of this current Government?
It seems age discrimination only works in one direction. You never read about younger people being discriminated against in the newspapers.
There is robust discrimination law protecting over 50s (On a side note this is the same discrimination law that the Daily Mail says is being used against employers left right and centre) There are, of course, exceptions which simultaneously allow employers to discriminate against young people, e.g. in paying less than the minimum wage for the under 20s.
In my opinion all this rather aptly illustrates the huge influence the over 50s have on the media, in addition to controlling three quarters of all the wealth in the UK.
If you were to believe the media, all older people are poor pensioners freezing to death while supporting stupid lazy younger people who only want stuff for free.
This is all redundant anyway, we all know tax fraud, evasion and avoidance costs far more than benefit fraud but they'll never go after those people because in the narrative of this country benefit fraud is far worse.
ducati: You make a good point here. But what happens when the government runs out of money and already tax their citizens too much?
It's already happening OM. More and more people claiming and less and less paying in. Something has to be done, but the popular belief is that Conservatives have it in for poor people because they hate them!
, but the popular belief is that Conservatives have it in for poor people because they hate them!
Not at all ducati - they dont have it in for poor people because they hate them - they just dont care about them - they dont see the point of them and they dont think they have any responsibility for them - therefore it is easy to target the cuts there because they dont actually matter to them.
The housing benefit budget is sky high largely due to the lack of affordable housing, If you are working an earning a low wage and on the waiting list for a council house you have no chance - Successive governements have made sure of that by selling off social housing by the shed load.
Remember all you "get a job" commentators that most people ( last figures i saw showed 55%) who receive housing benefit are actually working. Especially in the south east where rents are sky high. Move to get a job? Absolutely you should if you can but how are you supposed to live if you cant afford a private let, cant get a council property and cant afford to buy and cant get housing benefit because you are 22? After selling off a huge number of council houses and other social housing young people who live on their own for whatever reason and earn low wages have no option but to rent privately and therefore need to claim housing benefit. If you are a couple starting out - both working and cant afford to buy and cant get council property and cant get housing benefit what do you do? Single parent leaving a relationship? Someone estranged from their parents? Someone suddenly paid off from their work?
In the time you were talking about Ducati - young people COULD afford to buy a house and could even get a council flat if they needed one. I married in 1986 and we bought a house - I was earning £5500pa and my husband £5552pa and the house cost £17,750 - an attractive 2 bedroomed stone end of terraced house in a nice area. i think it is much harder these days.
Housing benefit should be paid to those who NEED it regardless of age.
Just reviewing threads. If you are buying you can only buy what you can afford. You can't go to the Gov. and say I want a to live in a more expensive area so divi up please.
Of course you can only buy what you can afford. A lot of people cant afford to buy though so what do they do where there is no chance of social housing?
Of course you can only buy what you can afford. A lot of people cant afford to buy though so what do they do where there is no chance of social housing?
But the point is, why should you have a right to help with affording rent? Or to put it another way, why do buyers have to move out of their area if they can't afford it but renters don't as they can claim. How is that fair?
But the point is, why should you have a right to help with affording rent? I cant believe you are asking that question.
Because if there was no housing benefit there would be slums - people living in squalor, or on the streets or in cardboard boxes.
This isnt just a right for those who rent Ducati - this is a right for all of us - You for instance if you found yourself having to move into rented property then you would be entitled to help with housing benefit if you needed it.
Lets see - My marriage ended - I had three boys and nowhere to live. I had to move to Inverness for a variety of reasons - I found a job and a house - a draughty old famhouse lol - I could only work part time until the children were settled - why would you NOT have paid me housing benefit - I couldn't have afford to buy - in fact I will never afford to buy a house again (and guess whether I have come to terms with THAT little legacy!) . I couldn't get a council house - despite having a job in Inverness, I didnt have enough points - all i could get was a scatter flat or bed and breakfast. I needed housing benefit to survive - I didnt claim for long but I needed it. Why do you think that I or anyone else shouldnt have it?
People need housing benefit because of the lack of social housing. Housing benefit was introduced precisely because of the lack of social housing - nothing else.http://pimlico-flats.co.uk/blog/renting-studio-flats-in-london/a-history-of-rent-and-housing-benefit/ If we had invested in Social housing then maybe there would be a case for not paying housing benefit for private lets but thats the silly "what if" game again - we have a massive lack of social housing and a responsibility to provide housing for the poor and the vulnerable and so we have to pay housing benefit.
As for buyers? Well they shouldnt have to move out of the area because there should be affordable housing which they can buy or social housing which they can rent. But there often isnt. So, if buying is important to them then they have to move and if not then they have to rent and claim housing benefit.
I feel sorry for these people who genuinely need benefits but either get refused or aren't eligible because some stuck-up jobsworth says so. All through my working life i have paid into the system and in all those years i have used the system four times to help me including presently. I don't ask any more but i certainly don't expect any less as after all i paid into it!. What i do gripe about is immigrants coming here to the UK to claim and those from the UK that have never paid a penny into the system yet milk it for all its worth. THOSE are the people that should be targeted, not the ones who have the right or need to claim. Its all about greed now too, these scroungers claim every kind of benefit going, even stooping so low as to bring children into this world purely so they can go for that bigger house with a nice big garden and get extra child benefit cash and some even claim they are drug or alcohol dependent to get even more benefit payouts. I know personally two people who don't work, won't work and are definately able to work yet they are on long term disability, have a smart house paid for by benefits, a disabled space painted outside their house and a car to park in it paid for by benefits, several hundred pounds a month free benefit cash and spend all the time in the local pub and bookies. These scroungers have Plasma TV's, their numerous brats all have xbox/pc/ps3 whatever, all have ipods/iphones, all wear nothing but the best in designer labels and scoff and shout abuse at everyone else who is stupid enough to go off to work in the morning. So to bring it back into perspective, a 24 year old being denied their housing benefit is a pale comparison to the REAL benefit problem!
OK Try again. Not objecting to housing benefit or any other in general. Anyone can have a catastrophy in life and need help.
However, the normal course of events was expected to be; leave education get low paid job. Learn, gain experience, improve job, wages lifestyle, when financially sound, start family improve conditions, once more responsibility comes along, work harder, improve job get a promotion and so on.
This seems to be totally broken. That is why I am not a socialiast. With a few exceptions I don't believe folk should be given what they haven't earned.
And squidge, you constantly refere to the low paid. Everyone starts out low paid. The point is to improve before you set up home start families etc.
yeah totally agree with you Ducati but the flaw in the natural progression of bettering oneself is that there are no proper jobs to allow this to happen nowadays. Used to be a job was for life, you progressed up the ladder and got promotion, respect and whatever other perks that came along. There was also a thing called a 40 hour week which came with the perk called overtime, you worked a full week and got the chance of a few more hours, got a better rate of pay for those hours and thus could save towards a better lifestyle. Overtime during the week was usually time and a third, saturday up until 12noon was time and a half and after that time and sunday was double time (well was in my old gaffe) You got up to 4 weeks paid holidays, a good xmas/new year break and were happy at what you did but nowadays its a single 8 hour shift, minimum wage, no real choice of overtime but you are expected to stay over a few hours with no notice or thought for your own personal life and expected to work weekends on normal time. so is it the employers fault or the govts for allowing this to happen? If you want a working weeks wage now you pretty much have to work for 5 different employers. Just have a look at the job section on the Org. its virtually all part-time 8hr jobs. with exception of a few decent employers there, the rest just don't want to play fair by taking on staff full-time. Take Homebase in Wick for instance. Last week they had 5x 8 hour shifts and iirc 2x12 hour (might have been 16 hour) shifts on offer but not for one person, its for 6 or 7 different people. Whats the point of having so many different people doing a fraction of a job when you could employ 2 people doing a proper job. but wait, that would mean benefits/pension/more nat ins for employer etc etc.....anyway, digressing from the original point, i still say if you havent contributed, you shouldn't claim or be entitled to any benefits whatsoever!
IMO ducati and Big Gaz are missing the point of Housing Benefit. A significant proportion of claimants are in work; in fact The Building and Social Housing Foundation published a report in March this year that revealed that 93 per cent of new housing benefit claims made between January 2010 and December 2011 were made by households containing at least one employed adult. Housing Benefit is paid so that affluent centres of population are not deprived of the low paid workers it needs. In fact in London and the south-east those ‘low paid workers’ include Teachers, Firefighters, Nurses etc. If you believe the ‘red top rhetoric’ everyone in receipt of Housing Benefit is a Somali refugee with ten children when clearly this isn’t true.
And what about Pensioners? If you rely solely on the State Pension you will be entitled to housing and council tax benefit. Those that have made provisions for a private pension more than likely wont qualify so why bother having private pensions when you can top up your income with benefits. And before anyone has a dig, Yes, I have private pensions and do not rely on the state.
C3...........:)
OK Try again. Not objecting to housing benefit or any other in general. Anyone can have a catastrophy in life and need help.
However, the normal course of events was expected to be; leave education get low paid job. Learn, gain experience, improve job, wages lifestyle, when financially sound, start family improve conditions, once more responsibility comes along, work harder, improve job get a promotion and so on.
This seems to be totally broken. That is why I am not a socialiast. With a few exceptions I don't believe folk should be given what they haven't earned.
And squidge, you constantly refere to the low paid. Everyone starts out low paid. The point is to improve before you set up home start families etc.
I think that MOST people still do follow the route that you suggest Ducati. But you know not everyone is able to progress to a highly or even well paid job - some people have to do the low paid work that is out there and that is what they do. Retail, Cleaning, hospitality, Warehouse work are all fairly low paid. Many people have to do part time work to fit around their children. This also depends on geography too jobs up here are much worse paid than the same job elsewhere. If this is your working life then how do you improve? If this is your working life then how do you afford to buy a home? You dont. In the past you put your name on the council list and you were offered a council house. You lived a good life, working in a mill, or a shop - you didnt need to be earning masses. Now you cant do that - you have to search around for a private rent because a young couple - both working are never going to have enough points for a council house or flat today. And if your job is to sweep streets ( now often privatised - low wages) work as a security guard, ( low wages) on a production line ( often low wages) in a shop ( often low wages) as a care assistant in an old folks home ( low wages) do we say to people "You cant start a family unless you can earn this much and afford to buy or rent a property by yourself?
Its ok to say that people shouldn't be given what they havent earned but in a market driven society where wages are low because profit is everything and house prices are high because profit is everything then how do people who are in menial and low paid jobs ever earn enough to buy their own house? do we deny them the right to a family home because they arent ambitious enough? do we say they must live in slums because they are not smart enough to be a manager or a supervisor or because they are stupid enough to leave their abusive husband/wife and end up with nothing?
If we are to say that no one should have benefits if they havent worked first then we have to be doing EVERYTHING to support young people into work - we have to have an apprentice programme that means that no young person ever leaves school without a job offer. We have to be making sure that our schools are successful with EVERY pupil and that EVERY pupil leaves school having achieved his or her potential. We have to have full employment in fact. If there is full employment then only the workshy or the lazy are not working. That isnt the case though is it?
If we are to say that under 25s shouldnt have housing benefit then there has to be affordable housing for everyone who needs it - everyone who is starting out on their lives independently whether as a young person, single looking for work or a single mum or a seperated dad. If there is affordable housing then there is no need for housing benefit and indeed housing benefit was introduced specifically to ensure that private landlords filled a social housing need. Unfortunately the market drove up rents and social housing was sold off with no requirement for replacements to be built. And so we dont have the option to use social housing.
And then there is the word "earned" How do you earn your right to anything? Is it by working? Is it by paying your way? Is it only by monetary wealth that we assess people's worth and what they have earned? What about if you overcome disability to live an independent life? You might never be able to work but you can live independently with the help of benefits - do we say no you cant have them because you havent worked? What about a single mum - never worked but does voluntary work, helps out at schools is a brownie leader? Does that not mean she is earning her right to support? What about a young person - kept their nose clean at school, did their best, never in trouble with the police, not academically bright but not stupid who leaves school and cant find work - do we say sorry you haven't earned anything so you have to starve because you dont get benefits unless you earn them.
If we had a society where jobs were plentiful, where families were always loving and supportive and where raising children was seen as worthwhile, where all children left school empowered to achieve their full potential and where good quality social housing was available, then we could do away with benefits but we dont. And until we do we need to support people with benefits. The system we have needs work and it needs changing but we should remember that 55% of young people getting housing benefit are actually working; we should remember that whilst 25% of under 25s are not working 75% are not claiming anything; that the governments own figures suggest that those getting more than they are entitled to either through fraud or error is about 3% of those receiving benefits and that those on benefits are NOT to blame for the state of the economy just now no matter how much the newspapers or the government tell us they are.
yeah totally agree with you Ducati but the flaw in the natural progression of bettering oneself is that there are no proper jobs to allow this to happen nowadays. Used to be a job was for life, you progressed up the ladder and got promotion, respect and whatever other perks that came along. There was also a thing called a 40 hour week which came with the perk called overtime, you worked a full week and got the chance of a few more hours, got a better rate of pay for those hours and thus could save towards a better lifestyle. Overtime during the week was usually time and a third, saturday up until 12noon was time and a half and after that time and sunday was double time (well was in my old gaffe) You got up to 4 weeks paid holidays, a good xmas/new year break and were happy at what you did but nowadays its a single 8 hour shift, minimum wage, no real choice of overtime but you are expected to stay over a few hours with no notice or thought for your own personal life and expected to work weekends on normal time. so is it the employers fault or the govts for allowing this to happen? If you want a working weeks wage now you pretty much have to work for 5 different employers. Just have a look at the job section on the Org. its virtually all part-time 8hr jobs. with exception of a few decent employers there, the rest just don't want to play fair by taking on staff full-time. Take Homebase in Wick for instance. Last week they had 5x 8 hour shifts and iirc 2x12 hour (might have been 16 hour) shifts on offer but not for one person, its for 6 or 7 different people. Whats the point of having so many different people doing a fraction of a job when you could employ 2 people doing a proper job. but wait, that would mean benefits/pension/more nat ins for employer etc etc.....anyway, digressing from the original point, i still say if you havent contributed, you shouldn't claim or be entitled to any benefits whatsoever!
Yes. But when I left school (at 15 with no qualifications to speak of) there were over 3 million unemployed. It is not a new thing and there was no Nat min wage. Now, everybody gets a reasonable living. It doesn't mean you have to stay on minimum wage. I went from School on Friday and started work on Monday. (for £12.50 a week) Not satisfied with this I changed jobs 3 times worked hard and bought my first house at age 19. And before you say houses were cheap, as a multiple of my wage it was more expensive than my current house. And jobs for life? you're having a laugh, I have had er...15 jobs so far (I'm sure I've missed one oh yes) 16 jobs. Anyway if I can do it, any able bodied person who can walk and chew gum at the same time can. So no excuse as far as I'm concerned.
Hey this is fun, I just listed all my jobs; Apprentice Diamond Mounter was the first one (I've just thought of 2 more that's 19. I'm away now to rationalise my CV [lol]).
A quick calculate shows that the longest I was in any one job was 10 years ( for C3, travelling in ladies underwear) and the shortest about a week :eek:
Selling off housing stock on Right to Buy does not reduce available housing. Right to buy purchasers would not buy otherwise so they would continue to rent. I'm a fan, it means people who would not normally aspire to own their own home get chance to. It was introduced also when the cost of maintaining older stock was seen as a bad way to spend money by councils who got much better value investing in more modern homes.
A Diamond Mounter eh Duke???.........Was that on Fri/Sat nights?
I shudder to think!!
lol....C3...............:roll:;);)
A Diamond Mounter eh Duke???.........Was that on Fri/Sat nights?
I shudder to think!!
lol....C3...............;);)
It is bazaar isn't it? It was making the jewelry that diamonds are mounted into. It gave me eyestrain. :roll:
I am a fan of right to buy too Ducati but only when there is sufficient social housing or when the money is invested into building more which it never was. Originally the money raised by selling off council housing was only allowed to be used for paying off council debt and so the stocks diminished as over the last however many years people have died and passed their houses on or they have been sold and sold again and here we are.... waiting lists where people have little or no hope of getting a house.
It is bazaar isn't it? It was making the jewelry that diamonds are mounted into. It gave me eyestrain.
I bet it wasn't the only strain it gave you!!!
Like you, I have mounted a few Diamonds in my time!!!
OK, suspension No2 coming up!!
C3....................:roll:;);)
I am a fan of right to buy too Ducati but only when there is sufficient social housing or when the money is invested into building more which it never was. Originally the money raised by selling off council housing was only allowed to be used for paying off council debt and so the stocks diminished as over the last however many years people have died and passed their houses on or they have been sold and sold again and here we are.... waiting lists where people have little or no hope of getting a house.
I didn't that much mind the "right to buy" policy...but I did think that the "right to buy even if the social landlord didn't want to sell" and the "right to an enormous discount on the purchase" was tantamount to stealing from the bank of all taxpayers to benefit only the individual.
In a country with a growing population, removing social housing from stock and not allowing replacement was the most short-sighted policy the terminally short-sighted Government led by Margaret Thatcher ever produced.....and it is shameful that today, in an economic crisis, we are still getting items like this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17330035 with Cameron continuing to push Tory ideology over common sense by endeavouring to revamp one of the most socially divisive pieces of legislation ever passed, by throwing more of our money at it.
And it is equally shameful that the Labour Party, when it could have at leastameliorated the destructive effects of the policy by decreasing or removing the discounts, ensuring replacement of houses otherwise lost forever to social housing, or even allowing councils the option of not selling stock while they had waiting lists over a certain level, or which had been specially built/adapted to cater for specific groups, like the disabled, for example....just went along with it as it was.
In 1979, 42% of the British population lived in council housing. By 2008, that was down to 12%. Between 1980 and 1996, 2.2m homes were bought under the right to buy scheme..and by 2008, there were four million people on waiting lists for social housing, between councils and housing associations. I think we can all do the sums.
And, into the bargain, the influx of Council Housing into the property market, as many took advantage of big discounts to take their profit and move up the housing ladder in the short/medium term, served to place real first time buyers looking for a home and who previously could have afforded a mortgage, at a disadvantage http://pricedout.org.uk/News/PressReleases/GovernmentAllowedBTLtoPriceOutaGeneration/tabid/200/Default.aspx which has undoubtedly resulted in additions of many names to the waiting lists for social housing.
Can you imagine the faces of those who bought their right to buy properties then used that right to take their first step on the "buy to let" ladder if they were told now, as the taxpayer has been told for the last thirty years, that their tenants had a right to buy the properties they built/bought and get a discount big enough to negate all their profits, even if they don't want to sell....and into the bargain, they are not going to be allowed to buy more housing to let, even if they can afford to do that.
The tenants who were entitled to buy would naturally be chuffed to bits, the ideologically fixated, who don't have to worry about the results of policies on joe public, because they are "all right, Jack", will be preening at their ability to make life even more difficult for the less advantaged ....but those who own the properties would be incandescent...so the difference between private individuals buying or building to let, and Councils doing the same is what exactly..bar the implementation of the rules of capitalism to the detriment of society.
oldmarine
05-Aug-12, 22:48
Apparently it is when it's the Government doing the discriminating...
Just the latest example...
David Cameron suggests cutting housing benefit for under-25s (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18567855)
So... What's the difference between a 24 year old in need of help & a 25 year old?
Does the differfence of 1 day qualify for this discussion?
Hate to say oldmarine, but, even without seeing your proof of age....you are far past 24/25 yo!
Past the free bus pass requirements too.
I suppose the cap on under 25 years old is to stop the generations on the dole ....
ie my mum/gran had a house as she was pregnant at 16 and I will do the same ..and never work a day mentality.....
The dole is supposed to be a stopgap to keep you afloat between jobs, not a way of life!
Same with housing benefit...and council housing ..there if needed ..not a long term solution.
....I suppose the cap on under 25 years old is to stop the generations on the dole ....
ie my mum/gran had a house as she was pregnant at 16 and I will do the same ..and never work a day mentality.....
Yes... It will probably help prevent that, but in the process a lot of innocent people who would never dream of stooping that low will be made to suffer as a consequence. Surely there must be a better way of dealing with the issue than this?
oldmarine
07-Aug-12, 00:25
Hate to say oldmarine, but, even without seeing your proof of age....you are far past 24/25 yo!
Past the free bus pass requirements too.
I suppose the cap on under 25 years old is to stop the generations on the dole ....
ie my mum/gran had a house as she was pregnant at 16 and I will do the same ..and never work a day mentality.....
The dole is supposed to be a stopgap to keep you afloat between jobs, not a way of life!
Same with housing benefit...and council housing ..there if needed ..not a long term solution.
Yes, you are correct about my age - it is 87 years this month on the 23rd. We have the same situation going on in the USA. Too often when people are on the dole they find it too easy and don't want to go to work. It should not be a long-term solution, but unfortunately it becomes so for too many people. They like to become dependent on the tax payers.
Only 2% of lone parents are aged under 20. Hardly an epidemic which requires legislation to stop benefits being paid. The number of teenage girls getting pregnant to get a house is small. For those who make that decision surely the answer is to try to find out why a teenage girl with her life before her would think having a baby so that she can get a council house is the best she can hope for. What is it that these girls have wrong with their lives that mean this is their only aspiration????? I didnt think it was the best option for me and my kids didnt think it was the best option for any of them so what is the problem here? Lack of self esteem, abused or neglected girls? the care system? Lack of educational achievement? poor parenting? lack of jobs? Society's expectations? You aren't telling me that they are lazy? having a baby and a house is hard work. Stopping housing benefit will make no difference to any of these things and is just political smoke screening - trying to make out they are tackling issues when they are not.
she was pregnant at 16 and I will do the same ..
You're, er,.. leaving it slightly late-ish.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.