David Cameron suggests cutting housing benefit for under-25s

[doodab]

Nobody really needs housing benefits.

If you think you won't be able to afford the rent if you get laid off, remember to save up more when you are working.

You won't have to pay as much tax because you won't be having to pay other people's housing allowance.

You see life would be so much simpler without a big government.

You do realise that telling someone on minimum wage who can't afford to pay their rent when they are working that they should save money in order to pay their rent when they aren't working doesn't really add up don't you?

[AtW]

You do realise that telling someone on minimum wage who can't afford to pay their rent when they are working that they should save money in order to pay their rent when they aren't working doesn't really add up don't you?

Have some living rather than minimum wage perhaps that allows people to pay rent, taxes and have some money to save?

[doodab]

Have some living rather than minimum wage perhaps that allows people to pay rent, taxes and have some money to save?

Well, yes, but my argument was that the best way to achieve this was to structure the economy in such a way as to ensure that working results in people earning a living wage. The blackshirts unfortunately seem to disagree and think everything would be much nicer if slavery had never been abolished. I'm surprised DA thinks like that to be honest, cos his profits are going to take a hammering if his contractors are bringing in 15% of nothing. I suspect he seeks to reinvent himself as a slave trader.

[AtW]

I suspect he seeks to reinvent himself as a soul trader.

FTFY

[Robinho]

You do realise that telling someone on minimum wage who can't afford to pay their rent when they are working that they should save money in order to pay their rent when they aren't working doesn't really add up don't you?

You do realise that the minimum wage, housing benefits and other populist wealth distribution policies only serve to inflate the lower end letting rates don't you?

[doodab]

You do realise that the minimum wage, housing benefits and other populist wealth distribution policies only serve to inflate the lower end letting rates don't you?

Yes, which means they ultimately hand money back to those wealthy enough to play landlord. Although of course this sector of the economy needs propping up and it's probably not cost effective to simply let the arse fall out of it and have to provide social housing on a large scale, not to mention rectify the health and social issues that will result from widespread homelessness and the growth of slums in our inner cites.

One could of course introduce something like the plague and simply cull the poor, although I suspect that even the rightest of the righties would find that unpalatable.

[Robinho]

So you want to prop up the housing market by giving poor people money in order to keep the landlords rich?

Or we could just let house markets decline, meaning poor people can afford housing and the landlords who have just made it rich off the back of an enormous credit-fuelled housing boom less rich.

I really thought Keynesian economics was dead.

[doodab]

So you want to prop up the housing market by giving poor people money in order to keep the landlords rich?

Not at all, I'd be glad to see rents and house prices fall. I think house price and rent inflation, coupled with the failure of wages to keep pace, particularly for the low paid, has resulted in a large increase in the number of working people claiming housing benefit to the point where something like 25% of working households claim housing benefit. Which brings me back to the point that you need jobs that provide a living wage. The fact that 25% of working people can't afford to pay their rent is a pretty damning statistic IMO.

The root cause of this is bad government IMO. We've had 20 years of it.

[DodgyAgent]

Not at all, I'd be glad to see rents and house prices fall. I think house price and rent inflation, coupled with the failure of wages to keep pace, particularly for the low paid, has resulted in a large increase in the number of working people claiming housing benefit to the point where something like 25% of working households claim housing benefit. Which brings me back to the point that you need jobs that provide a living wage. The fact that 25% of working people can't afford to pay their rent is a pretty damning statistic IMO.

The root cause of this is bad government IMO. We've had 20 years of it.

"The fact that 25% of working people cannot afford to pay" What does this mean? is it the "lead in" to justify whatever point you are making? Is it a statement to illicit a guilt reaction to make us think that you have the moral high ground?

What is interesting is how you have tried to move the debate from arguing about the desirability of paying benefits to people to not work onto the availability of benefits as a "fill in support" between jobs. You have completely ignored in true left wing fashion the underlying problem of people living off benefits. I have argued that any form of benefit disincentivises people, but I will cede that in a civilised society such as ours not only must we look after those who genuinely cannot easily find work (terminally ill/severly disabled) but we must help those who are caught on hard times.
The caveat is that this has to be paid for by someone else and money paid to people "not to work" is dead money, again something that the "money on trees" brigade conveniently forget.

This individual has also started a diatribe of cliche ridden garbage about "living wages" and "cannot afford". I am sorry but indulging people in this way is simply ridiculous. If they cannot afford to live for example in London then move somewhere else. This is how economies rebalance themselves and how wealth is spread around. Also these people talk about job provision as if jobs are somehow conjured up out of thin air. They are not. Jobs are not being created because we as a society are instead choosing to spend money on paying people to not work instead of creating a climate of job creation. We are choosing to heap ridiculous job prevention laws and we are telling people that if they work hard most of their money will be taxed (to spend on welfare).

It is a vicious circle and we cannot have it both ways. As manufacturing and IT are shipped off shore we remain hostage to the left wing idiots and their "entitlement". They want to maintain this welfare state because it patches up the failings of the rest of the useless left wing institutions (The Euro, the state education system, the welfare industry, public sector in general) and it makes these left wing liberals feel smug about themselves. One thing is for sure is that they dont give a sh*t about the people caught in the benefits trap.

I will accept that it is desirable for this country to make it as comfortable as possible for people on low wages to live and I thus endorse the building of "social housing". I also believe that the public services should be made to perform for lower earners by subjecting them to consumer style competition instead of pandering to their monopolies and allowing them to deliver services on their terms rather than those of the consumer.

[DodgyAgent]

You do realise that telling someone on minimum wage who can't afford to pay their rent when they are working that they should save money in order to pay their rent when they aren't working doesn't really add up don't you?

There are many workers in this situation who are perfectly aware of their circumstances who are quite capable of working it out for themselves. Also they are perfectly capable of moving up the job ladder to earn more. Or are you suggesting that they should be taken out of work and paid more to sit at home? It is indeed tough working on a minimum wage but I am pretty sure they do not need lefty do gooders patronising them. If the lefties did their bit and delivered proper public services they would not for example have to worry about their kids schooling.