Re~Stirred Forum

I am sure the Prime Minister's suggestion that people under 25 might lose the right to housing benefit is merely a probing into public opinion in relation to acceptability of what may be major changes in benefits and welfare provision to support the next Comprehensive Spending Review.

Ending the benefit would, according to initial indications save £2 billion a year.

The PM has indicated that he wants to stop workers resenting people on benefits. He is partially right in that resentment exists for those that are abusing the welfare system and those that can work but choose not to, but rational people will not resent those that have had to leave their family home for personal safety reasons, or having worked and got themselves a place to live but due to reasons beyond their control have lost their job and are forced to claim benefit to survive.

The Liberal Democrats may not be too happy to support any such movement to stop under 25s getting benefit. What will happen if it is withdrawn, young people forced to be homeless?

I said it was a probing measure as it cannot work for those in genuine need, I just believe it is a suggested change to test the water of public opinion to see how far the electorate will allow the government to go to change the system.

I have no problem with the reform of the welfare system to make it equitable, cost effective and directed to genuine need.

The welfare system and levels of funding for it are not sustainable in the present economic situation without overburdening the already hard pushed taxpayer.

So should we scrap housing benefit for those under 25?

Why?

Why are people aged under 25 less deserving than those aged over 25?

No, of course not. The Tories should concentrate their efforts on the £42bn business taxes left uncollected rather than (as per usual) targeting the vulnerable and poor.

I rather there was a concentration on cutting benefits to the rich and corporate public-teat-sucking. Would save tens of billions.

Cutting housing benefit would make it more difficult for young people to get "on their bike" and look for work in an area away from home.

This falls into the category of proposals from the PM for the 2015 Conservative Manifesto.

I agree with what has already been said, is it not more divisive to section off parts of the community? People in work resent benefit claimants? Well this is what the media have taught them and it bears no relation to what the situation is like!!

The assumption at present must be that the coalition partners must approve any such change?

I did mention that I thought this was a prelude to more significant changes that might come in the future, following the extensive ones already being put into action. John Hemming does make a salient point in that it is part of an agenda towards the 2015 election.

It is beyond doubt that the welfare system needs an objective review and changes to ensure that those in genuine need get support and those that abuse the system get a very hefty prison sentence and those that can work are stopped from just using the system to be lazy and iddle.

In the end the honest, hard working tax and national insurance payer are being abused. Yes the rich and companies that evade and avoid tax should be dealt with, the former by hefty prison sentences and property seizure the latter by having the vehicles and mechanisms by which they avoid tax legislated out of existence.

I don't agree with suddenly implementing a housing benefit ban for under 25s. Instead, I would phase in the abolition of housing benefit more gradually.

Year 1 - no new housing benefits claims for 18 year olds and under.
Year 2 - no new housing benefits claims for 20 year olds and under.
etc etc. until housing benefit is abolished.

Exactly the same ideas that have been expressed for the last thirty years - honestly, what makes you think that something different will change this time? Executions for benefit fraudsters perhaps?

Or perhaps we could design a system that meant that even people working one hour a week in work would be better off than just receiving benefits? That's easy to achieve if you drop all the moral indignation.

Dom, what proportion of under 25s housing benefit claimants are in work? What proportion have come out of the care system?

I was actually being facetious. Sorry. I don't agree with the idea of trying to shave a bit off the cost of this or that benefit by trying to pick the least politically problematic measures. Only a complete overhaul will do.

You know I agree with a complete overhaul. Abolishing housing benefit completely would be more sensible as it creates perverse incentives.

I would rather extend Housing Benefit to owner occupiers and those living with parents, not just tenants.
..and make it more generous for working people so it is not clawed back drastically as income increases.

I prefer a citizen's income which is generous enough that people can make choices for themselves. Same outcome through different means and without the state getting involved.

How much dosh, what method of payment & would it to be for every person of working age?

In reverse order of your questions:

I would have a single payment system for everyone who is 18 years or over (after completion of school year) and abolish the state pension. Therefore any income from pension schemes would be in addition to the citizen's income. This would be applied on an individual basis and available to everyone to claim between 18 and death.

My system would taper this payment through the tax system. If you claim it then you would pay an additional amount in income tax. If you're earning above a certain level, there wouldn't be any benefit in claiming. There would need to be other simplifications of the tax system required but this would support people in low pay the most and also help start-up businesses.

I was thinking of a single monthly payment of circ. £1,000 or £12,000 per annum. This would minimise the issues with housing costs in the South-East in particular where people on existing benefits would need transitional support and also give an economic boost to poorer areas of the UK. I would abolish NI payments and have income tax start on incomes above £15,000 giving people £3,000 of earning before starting to pay tax as the citizen's income would be treated as income.

In my dictatorship, citizen's income would see the abolition of housing benefit, child benefit, tax credits (working and family), jobseekers allowance, statutory maternity leave etc etc. The only benefit would be for disabilities paid regardless of age based on circumstances (needs tested, not means tested). In this system, there would be no means testing. In short, there would be a large simplification and quite a number of state employees made redundant. You would also see an end to parasitic companies sucking at the state teat like Emma Harrison A4e. Its a huge reduction in the role of the state in people's lives.

I think the Citizens Income is the right direction of travel. Universal Credit is supposed to be a step in that direction. I do think, however, that the state should support children as well.

Most supporters of Citizens' Income do appear to advocate an income for each child (but smaller than that for an adult). This is from a brief unscientific search.

I would suggest a system for those that get benefit that helps pay the interest on their mortgages to have a legal charge placed on their property, so that when they sell it 50% of what they got in housing benefit is repaid back into the welfare system.

Is it just that someone can take out an endowment mortgage and the interest is paid by the taxpayer, when they are unemployed or refuse to work, thus being enriched by others hard work and tax contribution.

Why do people travel so far from other countries to claim asylum here, rather than in the other 15 countries they pass through to get here?

I belive in a welfare system, but ours is such a soft touch, how many billions do we spend each year on it?

I think this piece is worth reading in the light of David Cameron's speech today:


http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/polit ... nefit-myth

One does wonder if this latest attack on "the feckless poor" has been rapidly cooked up to distract attention away from his rather ill-advised comments about tax avoidance the other day. For a brief moment the media was actually focussing on those in society who are genuinely the most anti-social and I'm guessing that wasn't Cameron's intention, as it was a little too close to home.......

This proposal shows that Cameron knows nothing about the problems faced by some younger people.

The benefits to be pared back are those paid to the better off.

Are you feeling alright today Comrade W CBE? Have you been having tea with Mrs. Thatcher?

Maintain complexity?

Agree with Jamie Carter.

If you cut housing benefits to under 25's:
If they have no home they can't get a job
If they have no home they can't claim benefits - look out folks, more violent crime from desperate people.

Its a ridiculous ploy to distract the country from the condems keeping their rich mates in whisky!!

Keep it simple. No tapers or claims.

A Citizen Income of £12k p.a. tax free for everyone 18 and above.

No child benefit.

45% flat rate income tax on all other income.


It makes for an interesting social experiment.

I am alright thank you Comrade Foster. I just think we waste so many lives by paying people to micromanage other people. It brings out the worst in some people. Imagine if we got them to do more socially useful things instead. I can't think of anything worse than the state employing thousands of paperclip pushers. Imagine what this could do for charities in terms of volunteers?

As for Mrs Thatcher - would she approve of this scheme? I doubt it somehow. Why do you link the two?


Well you would have to perform some administrative details such as what bank account you want the payments to be made into so there is an opt-in process needed here. The reasoning behind the taper is that it would support the poorest without benefiting those who don't need the state's support. As DOG points out, there are too many benefits for the better off that never get discussed.

Taking a moment from my new tax avoidance studies, what would happen to a couple who were married with 2 chldren , the couple/parents were recently made redundant from B.C.C., both the parents have worked since they were 16, "Mom" had 4 years out of work , this was until the oldest child started school, grandparents now help with child care,--then the cuts= no jobs. Dad is 23 Mom is 23,they have to claim benefits, so explain- how would cutting their housing benefit help anyone!
Now this is true a working Mom had her benefits cut, she couldn't afford the rent, Mom and child were made homeless, the local Authority put them in b+b,- 28 days the bill was £10050.
This is aimed at keeping older children at home, with mom+dad, this age are having a hard enough time.
cutting child benefit , or benefits for parents with more than 3 kids?, think about who this will affect most?
Here we go again working for your benefit, if an employer can offer hours for people seeking work, that must equal - a job vacancy?,
so Employ a job seeker? -No get more profit using job seekers , who the government pays
I am aghast that people are so easily distracted from tax avoidence, estimated loss to this country 70 billion , that info came from HMRC, who stated the tax avoidance loss was Not 30 billion--- but 70 billion, - meanwhile benefit discrepencies cost 1.1 billion-question if you were the P.M which would you focus on?.
Don't forget as well - the R&D tax (fidddles)they though are not as big as ----Residential and Domicile (fiddles).
I had to "sign" on for the first time in my life, after working since I was 14+half, I hated it , hate the thought of going to "sign" on again next monday. Trust me I want this to stop asap , but you know what , the people who get a clever accountant LOVE the feeling they get, from Not paying the tax they should pay!! . "The Jam" said it "the public gets what the public wants" "but I don't care what society wants I'M going underground"

There is some limited "Support for Mortgage Interest" but this is fair as it gives owner occupiers similar security to tenants. They are not being 'enriched' any more than are tenants, they still have to pay the capital.