Young people must 'earn or learn' - while parents gibber and pay.

(51 Posts)
flow4 Wed 02-Oct-13 18:59:15

David Cameron has just ended his party conference with a speech saying that he'll axe Benefits for the under 25s. They'll get no support from the state, and must "earn or learn".

But youth unemployment is high and rising. Many young people will continue to be unable to get a job. And if they can't claim any benefits, who will have to pay?

Us.

Yup. There's no other possibility: parents will be forced to support their kids for far longer, well into adulthood.

I don't know about you, but I don't think I could handle it. There have been times in the past few years when the only thing keeping me from going over the edge has been the knowledge that if things didn't get better - if I got any more desperate - at least I only had to hang on in there 'til he turned 18.

If I'd had to support him another seven years I don't think I could have done it.

David Cameron says if young people can't claim benefits, it will save £1.8 billion. But he's only counting the benefit savings, isn't he? I bet it will cost the NHS and other services many times more, as us parents pay up, take the strain, and gibber quietly in the corners of our sitting rooms.

So, David Cameron, I know your kids are still only small and you don't know any better yet, but listen to us and think again. Life is hard enough for parents of teenagers and young adults. Leave young people's benefits alone.

Or we'll send our kids round to your place.

englishteacher78 Thu 03-Oct-13 06:02:29

Also if we're all meant to work longer where will the jobs come from!

SatinSandals Thu 03-Oct-13 06:30:23

It all sounds quite reasonable until you take into account that there are no jobs for them and apprenticeships are like gold dust. The government statistics are not correct. My graduate son was unemployed for a year, he was living with us and not claiming anything and so he wasn't on any statistics and there must be many more unemployed who are hidden.
All the graduates who can't get jobs are working in retail and restaurants etc so I don't know what those without qualifications are doing.
We have just supported our son until he was 23yrs and found a job. He had a good degree and had hundreds of applications before he found one.

Flicktheswitch Thu 03-Oct-13 06:59:57

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

cory Thu 03-Oct-13 07:02:03

But...you don't just stop being able to afford to feed and clothe someone overnight.

You do if:

a) your child benefit, child tax credits etc dries up

b) you retire

c) you die

The older the child is the more likely it is that b) and c) will happen. And a) will certainly happen.

Flicktheswitch Thu 03-Oct-13 07:09:02

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

flow4 Thu 03-Oct-13 07:10:21

Currently, parents keep their entitlement to child benefit, tax credits, and 25% council tax reduction for 'single adults' up to the end of the academic year in which their child turns 19, providing they stay in full-time education. Presumably the government is intending to extend this entitlement to 25/26?
hmm >hollow laughter<

Wossname Thu 03-Oct-13 07:14:10

What about the fact that, actually, you can suddenly stop being able to afford to support your kids, as child benefit, maintenance and ctc all stop at 18? This is terrible.

Are young people with children excluded from this? Is ctc and hb excluded?

I cannot express the deep loathing I feel for tories grin

Flicktheswitch Thu 03-Oct-13 07:20:15

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

heidihole Thu 03-Oct-13 07:33:11

The thing is, SOMEONE has to support your child (young adult)

It seems a lot fairer that it is you rather than me (indirectly)

The money from the state wasn't getting there by magic it was coming from other families pay packets.

gamerchick Thu 03-Oct-13 07:45:34

You are aware that the same money will be still coming from your paypacket don't you? It'll just be funnelled into something else that doesn't benefit you. Will that be okay with you?

cory Thu 03-Oct-13 07:54:30

So heidihole, what about the children who have been born, through no fault of their own into families who cannot or will not support them?

You can say until you're blue in the face that the families ought to, but what would you do as a young person if they simply won't?

As a child, you would be taken into care if your family refused to feed you. What would you do as a 22yo?

Families get to choose whether to have children or not. But the child doesn't choose. And it's the child who's going to end up on the street.

NoComet Thu 03-Oct-13 08:02:06

Vickybee hits the nail on the head
"what about DCs from disfunctional families?"

Yes, I'd rather our taxes didn't have to support three brothers I know when they are between jobs, but their drunk father and absent mother sure as hell aren't going to.

They are good lads, they try, but life hasn't bleased them with advatages.

flow4 Thu 03-Oct-13 08:09:45

The thing is, families don't raise children alone in our society, and haven't done for decades. Child benefit, tax credits, housing benefit child rate, council tax discount, free prescriptions, free health and dental care, free education, discounted or free childcare, discounted transport, and more... All this support has been given to families, in recognition of the fact that raising children is too expensive for parents to do alone, and that doing it well benefits everyone, not just each child's parents.

And 18 is the magic number: it's the age at which the state stops all this support. Unless the government is intending to extend all the 'children's entitlements' listed here to 25 (and I don't suppose any of us are naive enough to think that) then what they are proposing is a weird, status-less limbo period for young people: the children's entitlements stop at 18, but adult entitlements will not start until 26.

I don't think it has even occurred to government ministers that parents will be hit by this. I think it's a back-of-the-fag-packet idea; they intended to take a cheap and easy shot at young people, and hoped it would be popular, because our society doesn't much like young people.

They think they're hitting the feckless youth, but in fact they're hitting hard-pressed parents already stretched to breaking point.

cory Thu 03-Oct-13 08:15:52

And the unfortunate youth who happen to be the offspring of feckless parents.

So, heidihole, you wouldn't expect the rest of us to support you? I hope you never lose your job or get ill then. Unless you think your parents will love supporting their adult child.

Children are not private possessions of their parents. They are part of society. And as adults they are full members of society independent of their parents.

The Tories love this kind of crap because its the absolute best way to ensure that there's as little social mobility as possible.

flow4 Thu 03-Oct-13 08:20:15

Yes cory. I missed an 'also'. smile

flow4 Thu 03-Oct-13 08:30:59

And also, when you think about it, the younger siblings of the 18-25 year-olds - who will presumably get smaller portions and fewer clothes when less money is feeding and clothing more people.

viperslast Thu 03-Oct-13 11:26:48

Actually flick your opening response was this "They don't magically stop being your kids when they turn 18. You chose to have children why should you expect them to become someone else's (albeit collective) responsibility at an arbitrary age?"

My response is not pedantic it is doing what you said and removing the arbitrary age (assuming you didn't simply mean replace that arbitrary age with a new one of 25 which wouldn't make sense) If you feel your children are always your children and people shouldn't see a (government created) cut off then surely that applies to any age. We are always someone's child, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be offered the support of the state. (Ok maybe it was a little pedantic sorry blush)

One of the good (although abused) things about the benefit system is that it supports from in front as well as behind. Sometimes people are not lucky enough to have spent 8 years paying in before needing to access it. The system recognises that and supports it by allowing ADULTS the time to get started out so they can then pay back in.

There will always be people who abuse that in some way.

The problem is that the hated youth (thanks largely to the same awesome campaign as the scrounging benefit claimants and the malingering dla receivers) are more often out of work because of the poor state of employment in this country than because of a poor work ethic, drug habit or predilection for hanging out in hoodys with Staffordshire Bull Terriers - whatever the government and it's pet papers would have you believe.

lastone Thu 03-Oct-13 18:54:23

was gonna comment on this but see you lot are handling it fine, some members seem to read a whole lot into comments and jump on the bandwagon of jumping on people when they complain about policy...perhaps DC and GO should start including 'hardworking parents' in their right wing propogandist bollocks, just so we all dont dare raise a point regarding the rights of young people. Confusing questioning of policy with desire to 'absolve' ourselves of parental rights at 18!! Oh dear, Ive commented afterall.

ZiaMaria Thu 03-Oct-13 19:04:36

I assume Cameron is doing it in the hope that he will be reelect end and can then tell us 3 years later that 'unemployment' as measured by the number on JSA, is 'down'. Won't it be convenient that none o the 18-24 year olds will be able to claim JSA...

The young people worst affected will not be the children of middle class Tory voters. It will be those who had fewer advantages to begin with.

Free education stops at 19. Higher education is not free and even the huge loans available don't cover it all, so many parents are already supporting their children to 21 or 22. Those same parents will carry on supporting their children if they cannot find jobs in spite of very expensive degrees.

Secret squirrels: I'd imagine the whole point is to make sure than those at the lower end of the income scale stay there, so that the well off can more easily pass on their social status to their offspring.

cory Thu 03-Oct-13 22:51:57

I can't imagine any measure that is designed to make young people less likely to get on their bikes and look for employment elsewhere: they'll be clinging to their parents for dear life.

utreas Thu 03-Oct-13 22:57:36

This idea is crackers and almost certainly won't happen so I wouldn't lose any sleep.

wanderings Sun 06-Oct-13 07:31:33

Camoron.

More money than sense.

Was born into huge wealth, lives in huge wealth, will die in huge wealth.

Like so many other super-rich, not really on this planet with the rest of us.

Doesn't understand the world the rest of us live in at all.

There are too many people like him in politics, especially in the current Eton-riddled government.

First rule of admission to Parliament should be: at least 10 years' experience in a real job, where they have to meet real people.

We are sick of these career politicians who are so distanced from people who don't enjoy the same luxuries that they do!

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now