Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
fru-gal

Thousands Of British Workers Aged Under 22 Could Lose Their Tax Credits So Ministers Can Axe Benefits For Migrants.

Recommended Posts

But under EU rules the proposal is illegal because it is 'discriminatory

After the Greek farce and democracy chaos it seems a crazy blanket rule with the UK not even being in the eurozone, no eu fiscal/political harmonisation or common economic policy worth speaking of (and no common benefits system). There seems to be plenty of discrimination in the UK in housing market as well even between British people. Why isn't everyone paid the same to start with if financial discrimination is so important.

Nobody in the UK voted for the rule - when the UK voted for the Common Market in 1975 there were only 9 members including the UK and now there's 27.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas." - Taylor Swift

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're pretty much the only place with such generous non-contributory benefits - a system which is inherently barking. Not only does it (probably) attract migrants from both the EU and extra-EU but builds in a benefits dependency on Brits from day one. That's why there are perpetually unemployed and dependent communities living in the place that a coal mine once stood a couple of generations ago.

And the generosity of these benefits mean that the benefits arising to the contributors are commensurately low. I've paid buckets of tax for decades but, should I lose my job, I could claim the square root of FA. For six months.

I hope these proposals come to pass. It'll mean that immigrants have come to work - demonstrably - and it will create an incentive to seek work and skills for the young Brits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And they finally figured out what people on this forum have been saying for a long time. It is easy to restrict benefit claimants from other EU-countries as long as the rules are the same for everyone which a contribution system would be and they have finally woken up to this. Good news!

edit) In most other EU-countries child benefit is based on residency. If you live there you get it....it is hard to see how to do this on a contribution basis.

Edited by moesasji

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely it can be done through democratic means, without harming the native British. You know, like the way the French have an opt-out of the "EU wide" ban on producing foie gras.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely it can be done through democratic means, without harming the native British. You know, like the way the French have an opt-out of the "EU wide" ban on producing foie gras.

The proposals *help* "native Brits".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After ten years of hard work watching house prices rise faster than I can save I am now the rightmost of right-wingers on immigration (we apparently can't even house the people who are already here) and in-work benefits (we're supposed to have a 'free market' - if companies can't pay the cost of living their business model is not viable).

I would scrap both tax credits and housing benefit for everyone.

In return we should have a proper welfare state for the unemployed (the government should have organised an economy where everyone has something useful to do) and for the disabled - not the hoop-jumping joke we currently have.

But continually singling out young people - for whatever reason - is completely unjust. How is an 18 year old or a 21 year old supposed to survive, when those born twenty years earlier can bid up the cost of living with benefit money? Where are they supposed to live? What are they supposed to eat? What jobs are they supposed to do - and how are they supposed to live on the wages?

It seems like in the 21st century the state expects people to live in their childhood bedrooms and be given pocket money until they're 35. When did it become acceptable to throw other people's kids under the bus? It's sick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The proposals *help* "native Brits".

Only those over 22. Notwithstanding all the usual 'layabout benefit cheat' stuff.

Edited by spunko2010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article misses the point either deliberately or through massive stupidity.

The rule could have been written based on years residency in the UK, lived here 18-20 years you qualify. This would enable natural born to claim the benefits while those new to the country would have to work for a good long while. I would also deport people after 3-6 months of no work.

The rules haven't been written this way for several reasons all of which benefit the elite.

It sets natives against immigrants as they get blamed for the harsh rules, this also distracts people from the real leaches.

It reduces benefits.

It enables pensioners to feel all warm and cosy as again they are safe.

It does nothing to control the amount of immigrants coming in, which helps suppress wages.

It increases the fear of losing your job in the young, which also helps suppress political dissent and protest.

It increases the appeal of higher education for the stupid. I wouldn't want the amount of debt students have to put up with at age 22.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There must be quite a few people out there who aren't reliant on benefits and aren't reliant on the bank of mum and dad. How many 18-21 year olds are actually in receipt of benefits anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There must be quite a few people out there who aren't reliant on benefits and aren't reliant on the bank of mum and dad. How many 18-21 year olds are actually in receipt of benefits anyway?

Up to half of them will be busy building up their Uni debt...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article misses the point either deliberately or through massive stupidity.

The rule could have been written based on years residency in the UK, lived here 18-20 years you qualify. This would enable natural born to claim the benefits while those new to the country would have to work for a good long while. I would also deport people after 3-6 months of no work.

The rules haven't been written this way for several reasons all of which benefit the elite.

It sets natives against immigrants as they get blamed for the harsh rules, this also distracts people from the real leaches.

It reduces benefits.

It enables pensioners to feel all warm and cosy as again they are safe.

It does nothing to control the amount of immigrants coming in, which helps suppress wages.

It increases the fear of losing your job in the young, which also helps suppress political dissent and protest.

It increases the appeal of higher education for the stupid. I wouldn't want the amount of debt students have to put up with at age 22.

Exactly! History has shown time and again that TPTB will find some group to blame for the country's ills knowing damn well that it's nothing (or very little) to do with that group but rather TPTB themselves. As much as I don't like BTL LL, I see the same is happening again with them when the real fault lies with the banks and the government for creating BTL loans, not regulating them and not building enough social rented housing.

If they really cared about sorting this mess out then make the benefits system contributory (with allowances for say the physically or mentally handicapped), it'll kill several birds with one stone. Instead they tinker around the edges as they still need scapegoats of some sort to blame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After ten years of hard work watching house prices rise faster than I can save I am now the rightmost of right-wingers on immigration (we apparently can't even house the people who are already here) and in-work benefits (we're supposed to have a 'free market' - if companies can't pay the cost of living their business model is not viable).

I would scrap both tax credits and housing benefit for everyone.

In return we should have a proper welfare state for the unemployed (the government should have organised an economy where everyone has something useful to do) and for the disabled - not the hoop-jumping joke we currently have.

But continually singling out young people - for whatever reason - is completely unjust. How is an 18 year old or a 21 year old supposed to survive, when those born twenty years earlier can bid up the cost of living with benefit money? Where are they supposed to live? What are they supposed to eat? What jobs are they supposed to do - and how are they supposed to live on the wages?

It seems like in the 21st century the state expects people to live in their childhood bedrooms and be given pocket money until they're 35. When did it become acceptable to throw other people's kids under the bus? It's sick.

where do you live?

prices round here are still down 8% on 2007, so about 30% in real terms?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Current government seems to have a visceral hatred for the youth of our country starting out, naive, unknowing, trying to make sense of a crazy world.

Juxtapose with them bending over backwards to protect the other end of the scale with triple locks and ring-fencing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There must be quite a few people out there who aren't reliant on benefits and aren't reliant on the bank of mum and dad. How many 18-21 year olds are actually in receipt of benefits anyway?

There will be some out there that need a hand and families can't / won't help them. When I moved out of home at 16 I claimed income support and housing benefit so that I could live in a bedsit whilst at college.

Once I had left and finished my A Levels I went and found a job, somewhere between there and going to uni at 21 I claimed housing benefit for around 6 months between jobs.

Under this government I would have been homeless twice and in a much worse position. All for them not wanting to shell out £60 rent for a bedsit + £50 for food a week .Since then I have paid back far more than my fair share of taxes.

Which brings me to another point, young people who claim benefits will more than likely pay back more than their fair share over their working life time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So are the government going to cut in-work benefits for already-working immigrants? If not, then to me, the horse has already bolted a long time ago. I think Osborne is going to be WAY off his cost-cutting targets yet again come 2020 - it'll be £2Tn national debt, £1.5Bn (or more) a week in interest repayments by then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article misses the point either deliberately or through massive stupidity.

The rule could have been written based on years residency in the UK, lived here 18-20 years you qualify. This would enable natural born to claim the benefits while those new to the country would have to work for a good long while. I would also deport people after 3-6 months of no work.

Money Box (R4) programme recently said that the "from birth" rule turned out to be illegal (don't remember the reason, probably an EU law) so they couldn't use that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Money Box (R4) programme recently said that the "from birth" rule turned out to be illegal (don't remember the reason, probably an EU law) so they couldn't use that one.

A "from birth" policy is just a de facto restriction to UK nationals, so would be against EU rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There will be some out there that need a hand and families can't / won't help them. When I moved out of home at 16 I claimed income support and housing benefit so that I could live in a bedsit whilst at college.

Once I had left and finished my A Levels I went and found a job, somewhere between there and going to uni at 21 I claimed housing benefit for around 6 months between jobs.

Under this government I would have been homeless twice and in a much worse position. All for them not wanting to shell out £60 rent for a bedsit + £50 for food a week .Since then I have paid back far more than my fair share of taxes.

Which brings me to another point, young people who claim benefits will more than likely pay back more than their fair share over their working life time.

I'm almost retired.

But this also happened to some degree for many in my generation.

I didn't get housing benefit (although I could have got a council flat a lot more easily), but there were various points between education and work where I needed some extra help when very young.

Money went a lot further back in the day mind.

My biggest problem was not having an inheritance and losing parents early on.

That was surmountable for me because I was able to go and get a totally free further education and even if I haven't done that there was a lot more work about (to the point where I once had 3 jobs in a day).

I think I would have been in pretty dire straits if I was in the same situation now to be honest.

I had hope working hard would free me.

I don't hold out much hope that will ring true for my kids.

It'll be down to what they inherit from me now.

All very Victorian again.

Edited by byron78

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So are the government going to cut in-work benefits for already-working immigrants? If not, then to me, the horse has already bolted a long time ago. I think Osborne is going to be WAY off his cost-cutting targets yet again come 2020 - it'll be £2Tn national debt, £1.5Bn (or more) a week in interest repayments by then.

Yes, they're cutting in-work benefits for already working everybody. Tax credit thresholds are to get lower and the amounts reduced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many successful productive people needed a bit of support to kick start them when they're young? Sounds to me like another excuse to throw an entire generation under the bus!

Sure they should up their game and learn skills, but with Colleges becoming economically unviable due to cuts, that won't be an option either.

Basically unless you want to be #unidebtslavefodder, your choices are to either enslave yourself in our laughably liberal economic system, or just quietly find somewhere to die .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   33 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.