Express.
UNEMPLOYED young people could be forced to live with their parents rather than rent homes at taxpayers’ expense, it emerged yesterday.I suspect we'd see a massive rise in the number of homeless people sleeping rough on the streets as the government seem to have forgotten the other part of the equation, Mum herself. There are a lot of families out there who struggled to bring up their kids and for all they love their kids don't particularly like them at any given time, late teens and early twenties being difficult years, that plus the cost of feeding them and keeping them usually exceeds the amount of rent they get from the jobseekers allowance, assuming Mummy's little darling actually tips something up. We've just managed to rid ourselves here of both the kids and frankly we don't want them back, though fortunately there's no danger of that with my stepdaughter and granddaughter, unfortunately my stepson is right in the governments crosshairs for this policy, he has a place of his own (rented) but if he loses the benefits necessary to stay there it's doubtful we'd have him back. I know it sounds cruel, but you lot don't and have never had to live with him.
Many working young people have no choice but to stay living with their families because they cannot afford to move out.
But under-25s earning below a certain level and those on Jobseekers’ Allowance may qualify for housing benefit help towards renting a room or bedsit.
The Government is keen to close the loophole.
It is considering plans that would mean youngsters on benefits should also be expected to stay with relatives until they can afford to move out.
No immediate announcement is expected and discussions are at an early stage.
But Downing Street is determined to ensure that people are always better off in work than on the dole.
But even supporters admit the policy could be difficult to enact. Emma Boon, campaign director of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “It will be hard to tell whether or not a young person has somewhere else appropriate where they can live.
Most parents strive to see their kids do well, unfortunately not all kids do and the options for them to break out on their own have been severely limited, those not academically inclined have been marginalised to the edges of society, by mass immigration and ridiculous academic requirements for what is essentially unskilled labour (try getting a job at McD's without some form of GCSE and you'll fail) Most agencies are stuffed full with immigrant groups looking for work and often enough they get priority as they can work longer and live cheaper before they return home with a decent wad of cash for their labours. I don't blame them for doing this, but it does cause a problem here by keeping wages low for our own young and prevents a few of them from gaining work related skills.
I personally think a government policy along those lines would have dire consequences for some young people, I'd rather they targeted their cost savings elsewhere, such as removing child benefit after the second or third kid and having a lower cap on benefits.
Sadly though, they remain completely out of touch with real life.
5 annotations:
This was always bound to happen and the next will be for old people to move back into the son's or daughter's home with them.
I read the article in the mail with growing disbelief. [Of course when the likes of Cameron wanted to go home (if he did after Eton and Oxford), I expect that they could have let him have the East Wing, or maybe the West... whatever.]
My first question was....what about the parents? it's a little like when Cameron says that these people must be made to work, you think.... yeah, you need to tell the employers about this.
Most people can't afford bigger houses than they absolutely need, and those living in council houses will be forced to move into smaller houses when their kids leave home... to get married in some cases.
Will they then be forced to move into bigger houses so that they can take their kids back?
What will happen if parents are dead...or ill... will kids have to go and live with the grandparents, or great grandparents, uncles, third cousins twice removed...?
What about (as you say) step children? Do I want to keep another man's kid? Why wouldn't he go live with his dad, but then would his dad's new wife (or whatever) want to look after him?
Would princess Beatrix or whatever have to go back to living with prince Air Miles, who sponges off him mum anyway, even if she is 87? or princess Ferguson, who hasn't got a mum to sponge off?
Will Charlie have to take wee Harry... because they are all on benefits in rent-paid houses?
Or is it only common people who don't vote Tory that will have to do this?
Does this government think, even for a second, before it trots out its stupid policies.
As for the qualifications QM. I suspect that it may be that qualifications are soooooo easy (I did an A level French paper while I was waiting for a bus the other week), that if you haven't got SOME qualification you must be either brain dead... or bone idle. And who would want to employ either of these categories?
AS with so many of our problems, the EU is the cause.
Unfettered, unlimited immigration has made it extremely difficult for young people to get that all important starter job. It has also put pressure at the lower end of the housing market (rental and bought).
Until we get out of the EU so we can control our borders, nothing is going to change.
Although I quite like the idea of young welfare recipients being forced to return home, you are quite right - many won't be able to do so. And if Mum happens to live somewhere else, in a place where there is even less likelihood of them finding work, it would be self defeating.
So it should be encouraged, but not eforced. The alternative should be Government-owned hostels and/or the YMCA: a room in a multi-occupancy building and no rent allowance paid.
DeeDee99 - I think you've got it.
Our Government should be controlling UK borders, not UK boarders.
Post a Comment