Recently, there has been uproar about David Cameron's suggestion to scrap the housing benefit for under 25s, claiming that it would save £2bn a year and send out a clear message on welfare. Cameron asserts that by doing this, the government will be sending out the message that hard work pays off, people who can't be bothered to find work aren't automatically entitled to benefits and that the family should hold a larger responsibility for their children rather than palming them off onto the government.
Now, let's get this straight. Cameron is not suggesting we take away ALL benefits for under 25s, only the housing benefit. All the other kinds of benefits such as jobseeker's, incapacity benefit, child benefit, disability benefit, income support, crisis loans etc., will still be on offer to those that need them. Cameron understands that if you have no legs and the only available jobs demand the presence of all your limbs then you simply won't be able to take those jobs, and as a result of this, you will be entitled to a whole range of benefits to account for your situation. Simply taking away the housing benefit is not some kind of awful prejudice against young disabled people, or people that can't find jobs no matter how hard they try. It is essentially saying that if you don't work for a living due to having a child at a young age or whatever, then the government will support you and your child but sees no reason for you both to have a gorgeous apartment or three-bedroomed semi when there are other people with full-time jobs who still can't afford such luxuries.
I have heard the most ridiculous arguments against Cameron's idea, which I am about to examine (and totally destroy) in this article.
#1 What if parents refuse to take their children in? How is it ethical to send a person back to a possibly violent home?
If I'm being honest, I don't really see that it is David Cameron's problem if some cold-hearted parents refuse to give their otherwise homeless child a roof over their heads. If it was made obligatory for under-25s to live at home if they couldn't afford a place of their own then it would be the parent's responsibility and not the government's. You can bang on all you want about how this shouldn't be the case but in my opinion, if you are a good parent, then you will not see your child out on the streets, and by promoting this ideal of families pulling together and supporting each other, Cameron is trying to bring back the old-fashioned values that the Conservative government favour.
What's more, Cameron has already stated that some would be exempt from the bill, such as youngsters leaving care without a stable home to go to and people escaping violent or otherwise abusive homes, thus obviously not intending to put poor little defenceless people in the grips of the utter evil that they've spent 24 years trying to escape from.
#2 But 25 year olds are adults, they shouldn't have to live at home.
Maybe 25 is a little too high. Maybe the bill would be more suited if it was aimed at under-23s or something, but for the most part, I do believe that young people should be at home. Statistics show that 56% of under 25s live at home and 19% in student flat shares, with only the remaining 25% living away from home. Under 25s living away from are in the minority, and why should the rules be made to suit a minority? It's the same with Jeremy Kyle cases who have popped out babies aged 18 and never intend to work a day in their lives verses the odd 24 year old who has just finished university with a doctorate but can't find work so is having to sleep on the streets. Statistics once again reveal that only 1/6 of people on housing benefit are working. You can blame it on the lack of jobs or you can just admit that chances are the majority of the people (5/6 to be precise) are sitting around smoking weed and getting fat. You shouldn't pass a bill to suit the minority of a minority. It just isn't logical and if every government did it then we'd never move forward.
#3 But there are no jobs out there because dirty immigrants are stealing them all
I HATE this argument. If I half-heartedly looked for a job for, oh I don't know, an hour, then chances are I wouldn't find one. However, if I handed out CVs absolutely everywhere, trawling the streets in all weather conditions, signing up to website such as Gumtree and emailing every single offer advertised I'd find one. Yes it may be doing something I don't particularly want to be doing such as cleaning toilets but when you're unemployed you can't afford (literally, ha) to be snobby about what you do for a living.
I've just opened Gumtree to prove myself right and it tells me that there are 6709 jobs available in Manchester. Now this may not sound like a lot but remember that most chain stores and big businesses won't advertise on websites like this, and even if they did, Gumtree is ONE website. One among many similar websites. It'd take me about five minutes to find a job on there so I simply can't accept that it is IMPOSSIBLE for little dole bums to find jobs when uni students like me, who are inexperienced and inflexible with their hours (in term time, when we have lectures during the week), could find one at the click of a button. It might be tough to find jobs but it's not impossible, and my guess is that people would be searching a damn sight harder if there wasn't the option of sitting on their Xbox's all day long while money was thrown at them from all directions.
#4 It punishes poverty
I found somebody saying this on a thread on The Guardian and I wanted to smash the computer up. This kind of argument is your typical left-wing Marxist crap that socialists will spout WHATEVER the problem. Asda's sold out of pizza? This punishes poverty. The cost of petrol is rising? This punishes poverty. A middle class girl won The X Factor? Yeah, you've guessed it, it's a capitalist ploy to punish poverty.
If you can't be arsed getting a job and so live in squalor than you deserve to be punished. There. I've said it. Everybody believes in Darwinism these days but for some reason they seem to think that survival of the fittest doesn't apply to humans. Well, newsflash, if you believe that we descend from apes than you must also hold the view that those lazy, incompetent drains on government money are destined to die out. Sorry bout it.
Groups of people that spout the same argument at every possible opportunity need to find a new one. It's the same as a feminist saying "all men are evil" even in cases where men are actually the ones losing out. It's immature and not worth taking seriously.
#5 Some people can't help but have kids young, what about rape victims?
Not everyone who has children under the age of 25 is a rape victim. Not everyone who is raped is under the age of 25. Not everyone who is raped gets pregnant. Not everyone who falls pregnant from rape decides to keep the baby. Not all babies that have been kept as a result of rape survive the entire pregnancy. It's another example of the minority rule. Women under 25 who have children as a result of rape are in the minority. Rape and resulting pregnancies don't just occur every 5 minutes in women under 25. We can't alter a bill that suits the majority in order to suit this strikingly small minority. (No, I don't have statistics to back this up because it's such a stupid argument it frankly doesn't warrant the time it would take to find some).
#6 David Cameron is rich, he doesn't understand what life is like for poor little people like me
Er, what? David Cameron received a first class degree from Oxford in Philosophy, Politics and Economics. He knows a hell of a lot more about these things than the majority of people, especially those WITHOUT a degree in said subjects. Also, having done a hell of a lot of work in his time (not like the dole bums complaining then) and having had experience being prime minister, I hardly think that this man has lived such a sheltered life that he doesn't understand your situation. He probably understands it more than most. Just because his decisions don't make it easy for you to do nothing all day long doesn't mean the man is stupid. Please don't sit there in your council house being so arrogant as to assume that you know what is best for the country and David Cameron doesn't, or that you know more about economics than he does. Please light a cigarette and get back to watching The Jeremy Kyle Show.
To conclude? I'm glad that this bill has been discussed. For once, we seem to have a government that recognises when people need help, but also recognises when they are taking the piss.
No comments:
Post a Comment