Sorry if this seems like an obvious question...., as under 25s cannot claim working tax credit, is there any other provision for this age group and why can't under 25s claim the tax credit.

It's because the government has the middle-class view that under 25's need less money than over 25's because they live with their parents and that, if they don't, they should jolly well go back and live with them. That's why they also get less money through JSA, IS etc.

I'm sure someone was trying to challenge this at one point but I can't remember what became of it.

I get all bitter and twisted when this issue gets aired. In Supplementary Benefit days, all claimants were treated equally, from age 16 onwards (yes, they paid unemployed school leavers). The present system is a cynical money-saving-at-the-expense-of-the-poorest-members-of-society move introduced by a far right government in the 80s.

They were the ones who started to hammer benefit-claiming mortgage payers more and more during their tenure. When they first introduced qualifying periods for MI, they had a rule allowing capitalisation of arrears for a claimant who became long-term, with housing costs allowable on the higher sum. Not long after that, they quietly abolished the rule.

So what do we get in the brave new world of the neo-conservatives now in power? Damn-all change for these unfortunates. With Dubya back in for another 4 years, his poodle will probably start adopting his social policies.

I know, what a rant and it's not (quite) Friday yet!

Jim

If you link this provision in WTC to the rules for under 25s in HB, the temptation is to believe that young people should be living "at home", and don't really need extra money to top up low wages, because that is what parents are for...

whereas in reality, there has been an explosion of homelessness among young people, not unconnected to the board and lodging rules introduced by said government, and lack of single payments for furniture if they got a flat, so they couldn't live in it, which got harder anyway when council stocks depleted because of 'right to buy' - before said gov't hit its stride with the 'Reforms' not unconnected to the great non-southern recession and mass unemployment, and stopped paying the under 18s and underpaying the u/25s, where ever they picked that age from is anybody's guess, so all those stroppy teenagers and financial burdens on hard-pressed parents, no wonder there are marriage breakdowns and mental breakdowns, and they never get on with the step-parent or mom's boyfriend, so it's no surprise if some end up sleeping on the streets with a little dog, or dealing crack or collecting asbos, and other 'non-decent and hardworking' behaviour, nevermind flicking chewing gum on the pavement or 'whatever'.

there's no reason whatever for age 25 - its wholly arbitrary and a cost- cutting measure for people who are ideologically opposed to the notion of 'social security'. they do not _believe_ in it so it does not occur to them that there can be a _reasoned_ argument for it, so they do not do their social investment/social cost sums properly.

this is Mrs. Thatcher's government of course.

what excuse a socialist (hahahahaha!) government espousing the virtue of joined up thinking has, especially with a brilliant chancellor, escapes me. but the damn - near criminalization premiss it has grafted into social security, i consider inexcusable and unforgiveable.



jj

ps but not uncorrectable.

i've nothing against giving gordon brown 1 month to correct his defects. : )

jj

Thanks for all you replies - I thought (stupidly, maybe - naively, definitely) that there may be some equality in the system. I don't know what I was thinking.

... nice thoughts is what you was thinking. There is a place for them sometimes you know.

The trouble was that Reynolds rushed in on Article 3 and that was always a doomed approach to this.