Donate SIGN UP

Benefits For The Under-25's

Avatar Image
AB Editor | 15:26 Wed 04th Jul 2012 | Jobs & Education
29 Answers

This poll is closed.

  • Yes, of course! - 84 votes
  • 46%
  • No, under-25's shouldn't be eligible for any benefits at all. - 58 votes
  • 32%
  • No, but other benefits are fine. - 42 votes
  • 23%

See final stats

Stats until: 14:53 Mon 22nd Apr 2024 (Refreshed every 5 minutes)


1 to 20 of 29rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by AB Editor. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Question Author
I'm amazed that a third (at the time of writing) have gone for: "No, under-25's shouldn't be eligible for any benefits at all."

Can anyone tell me why they voted this way?
Under 25's are entitled to vote, work and pay tax so they should be entitled to housing benefit. I've worked since I was 16 (42 now) and left the care system to live independantly at 18; I was made redundant at 19 and was out of work for 6 months, whereby I claimed benefits, which I felt I had as much right as anyone else.

I didn't have a choice to stay at 'home' until I was good and ready to leave. The benefit system needs a massive overhaul, but picking on the vulnerable won't help.
Weird init Ed. I think housing benefit should apply in certain circumstances, but generally I think there is a problem with a vast amount of under 25's who have never worked and think benefits are a way of life receiving a lot of the benefits available, particularly housing benefit.

A lot of youngsters now see benefits and a lifestyle and don't contemplate working.

Benefits should be for those who are in trouble through no fault of their own.

We can't really define that by age!
Agree entirely with Meg888.

There may perhaps be a case for saying that if you have *never* paid into the system then you should be restricted in what you can take out - but I'd actually argue that those sanctions should apply over the age of 25 rather than under - i.e. to people who have had plenty of chance to find gainful employment but chosen not to ...
Trouble is Dave a lot of these youngsters are led by the example of their parents. I agree with you, but perhaps if they are not given so many benefits it might encourage them to think about a different type of lifestyle and to get off their backsides.

As I said, I think that benefits should only be for those that are in difficulties through no fault of their own.

These days there seems to be an option of whether to work or live on benefits.
Totally agree with Lottie.
Single people under 25 get £56.25 JSA each week to live on.
They are not all lucky enough to be able to live at home with supportive parents.
what about under-25s who are respectable, married by choice with children by choice, who lose their jobs? not all under-25s are dossers and layabouts.
My son, who has worked since he was 16 and left home at 18, lost his job last year and spent all his savings and sold some of his possessions rather than claim the benefits he was entitled to.
Signing on isn't a lifestyle choice - it's degrading.
It annoys me when people stigmatise young people.
But it is a lifestyle choice for quite a significant percentage of our population Charity - young and old alike. It shouldn't be.

I don't know how people manage it. On the couple of occasions where we could have done with some urgent help (redundancy) (we have both worked all our lives and our now retired) we haven't managed to qualify.
Yet some manage to milk the system very successfully.

Age shouldn't really come into the occasion. But kids learn from parents.
Not all under 25`s (or those over) qualify for £56.25 per week. It`s means tested so they can get nothing! Admittedly that would be because they have savings-- but with interest rates so low.........
Question Author
"A lot of youngsters now see benefits and a lifestyle and don't contemplate working."

I'd like to see some figures to back this up.

"Benefits should be for those who are in trouble through no fault of their own."

LOL, like being young during a recession after the older generation has caused a great mess and pulled the ladder up behind them? :)
LL significant percentage? How signifcant? I am sure as we all are that there are people who abuse the system. I am equaly sure there are fine upstanding people, who are deprived of the chance of work or a decent standard of living, by a ruling class that have no perception of what its like to not be able to pay bills.

As long as people in this country allow themselves to be led by the nose by the a media, intent on stereotyping anyone who claims benifits as lazy, binge drinking and work shy the more it suits the purpose.

Today we are told that 20,000 soldiers are going to be made redundant, I suspect a very large percentage of those are under 25. Will they be labeled as scroungers and sent home to "mummy". Go enough to die for the country not good enough to have housing.

As I said there are scroungers and cheats but until some one applies perspective nothing will be true or fair.
I want to add....im25, and if you see my posts, i am DESPARATE to work.

I do not want to remain on JSA....but im gratefull for what the government gives me, i doubt i can feel much worse, but if i want entitled to anything i really cant imagine where id would be pretty grim.......xx
Ps: if i hadnt given up my flat, and moved home (some would say im lucky to be able to move home- debatable) have been entitled to housing benefit?

So me, who went to uni after being made redundant, and succesfully secured a degree in nursing, whilst workinf part time upto 55h a week NOT including any course work or essays or exam study.......then there are NO jobs, and I worked from the age of 17 (before that aswell but obviously not contrubuting to tax & NI).......i should be denied a helping hand whilst i SCOUR everywhere for a job. Thats fantastic that is. X
You'll get there Tinkerbell (incidentally my sons thought you looked gorgeous in your last picture)
Having worked in a homeless hostel with a 16-25 year old provision, most were feckless wonders who didnt want or had any inkling what it was like to work and earn a wage. They exspected it to be handed to them on a plate.

Some wanted to better themselves but the majority didnt which is why they ended up in the hostel.

However, some should be entitled to help with proof they need/have worked for the help they are asking for. Im only 26 myself but have worked from the age of 14 till my daughter was born and had to leave work due to relocation and my husband gaining a far better job.
This is yet again an almost unanswerable question.

Say 'Under 25's on HB' - one section of society immediately conjures up a vision of a Fake Burberry clad young Mum with a fag on, a double buggy and a toddler in tow. Or young hooded youths on the street corner mouthing off.

This is only part of the picture, the other side of the coin is that there are lots of young people out there seeking to better themselves in a climate I am sure most of us would find difficult if just starting out.

A generalisation too far yet again.
Sticking to my guns and agree with Firewatch. I am not branding all young people, but there are a lot about who have never worked and don't have the mind set to get a job either.

And Ed. 1. I didn't cause the recession and have always worked hard.

2. My son has always worked on a variety of really grotty jobs initially for a low wage, in spite of excellent qualifications.

If you're old enough to sign up for the armed forces, you should be old enough for everything.

What about young adults leaving the care system? They have no family support.

How about a 23 year old, made redundant after working for two or three or more different companies since he was 16? Not much redundancy for him (or her)?

Or the married mum whose husband walks out on her, leaving her with no income and a baby?

1 to 20 of 29rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Benefits For The Under-25's

Answer Question >>