to think that it is disgusting that in 2011...

[StuckinTheMiddlewithYou]

So many people cannot raise a family without state support. The economy is so skewed towards the needs of the rich that it is almost impossible for many to support themselves entirely.

Wages are too low. Housing costs are too high.

Attacking those who have no choice but to rely on the state, is missing the point.

No, I don't want to restrict your freedom. You are free to do whatever you want - as am I. I'm just confused as to why your here? What for?

Well it hasn't worked that way in India. And the wonderful equalities of eastern Europe provoked quite a bit of unrest.

rightpissedoff does have a good point that Labour have created a dependency culture.

By 2008, 25% of people in England and 33% in Scotland were paid from the public purse. Excellent idea, because you create a ready made electorate for yourself, but very bad for the economy because it puts a huge burden on the private sector which has to finance the public sector.

Now it's turned out that actually that ratio is totally unsustainable - even with the biggest tax hauls ever for 10 years we still had to borrow to pay for it all- everyone's pissed off, plus all that borrowed prosperity shoved a load more money into a system that really didn't need it, so everyone had money to buy......houses.

It's all too beautiful.........

Is the op being unreasonable? Why, yes she is. And it's always nice to disabuse people of their misconceptions. I suppose you are here for worthy debate.

RPO if you limit it to disabled people and carers why would anyone pay in? from my experience about 90% of the UK population think theya re immune to membership both of those groups, but a hell of a lot (like my DH) pay in willingly for decades in case they lose their jobs.

Besides you can't withdraw the welfare state without accepting the sight of homeless and starving children on the streets because that would happen and I would personally class anyone willing to do that as disgusting. An unusually strong opinion for me on here but there you go: one I hold absolutely.

Claiming JSA or IS, despite what some people think, only emans not paying in this week, not wasn't paying last week or next. 80% of Hb claimants aren't registered unemployed after all- that's made up of carers, disabled, elderly, and low income workers.

"that is not true bagged - I was on that thread, it was said many many times that of course being poor in the UK is not the same, but that it was irrelevant to the current conversation."

Yeah, ok, so maybe I exaggerated a bit but there was deffo someone who said not having money to buy bog roll equalled abject poverty, whereas in India if you were poor you wouldn't have a loo, never mind any loo roll to put in it.

Yes I paid in for years and have just been refused help because they weren't the right years. Don't let your dh hold onto that thought.

Oh -- I would pay in for disabled people and carers. The idea of it being National Insurance is not really a go-er. Disabled people and carers just need help because they just do.

Actually Dh HAS been able to access help after redundancy. Via TCs in fact (working PT and retraining you see) but we have been able to (I fall into the carer group that you already mentioned).

Can I ask why they said that? There are fiddly criteria for JSA etc but it's rare that someone in need can get nothing at all tbh.

By 2008, 25% of people in England and 33% in Scotland were paid from the public purse. Excellent idea, because you create a ready made electorate for yourself,

Paid by the state instead of their employers ... that is the disgrace.
And the ready made electorate didn't vote for them did they, "poor" never seem to vote, despite them having the most to lose, very odd.

It doesn't really matter who made housing costs too high and wages too low - doing nothing isn't going to fix it, taking away benefits won't fix it, pretending it's not a problem won't fix it.

I think the minimum a person should earn working full-time should be set at £25k (enough to allow for an adequate standard of living)and the maximum someone can earn should be capped at £75,000 (including bonuses). That's still enough of a scale and incentive for people doing well (earning 3 times more than others). The scale we have now is just crazy, out of control and actually a disincentive to most poeple because it's so unfair.

Oh I do understand the attitue you ahve though I don;t share it.

Seems to me that inclusion of working poor and feckless in the same bunch as carers and disabled and then again elderly is a mistake.

I have come to the conclusion tehre should be two levels of HB: the one proposed as a cut one for someone who has not worked for five years or more (being in S / wales I am very aware of long terms truggles in fidning work even for the person trying their hardest) and does not claim CA, DLA or pension credit.

Those in the remaining group- which would be alone parents of children under five*(the Government's current accepted limit), carers, disabled, elderly and working poor or recently redundant get the current rate which still falls short but would absolutely reward people who do either work or live up to their reponsibilities with at least remaing where theya re or being able to secure housing more easily.

*I know lots of people don;t agree with that limit eitehr, I have no emotions either way so simply used current government age limit. It's certainly obvious IMO that lone aprents do at elast face additional barriers in getting work they can do, such as a complete lack of childcare for shift jobs, which here make up the majority.

YANBU.

I find it awful that DH works full time but cannot afford to totally provide for his family as the wages where I live are shit and the cost of living is very high. I cannot work so have to rely on benefits and get sick of people (not saying on here, just in general) benefit bashing.

It drives me mad that we saved as much as we possibly could for a deposit for a part rent part buy house thats the size of a shoe box as rents are just too high and we had to move 7 times in 7 years as every rental property and landlord we had, we had problems with. Then you get people who can get a decent size council place then trash it. We were made homeless when I was pregnant and the council were of no help so we sorted ourselves out. I feel if we had been pushier people (which we are not) we may have got somewhere with them, but we choose to do it ourselves and ended up in an awful living situation with a landlord that would scream and shout at us whilst I had just had a baby. I'm sure that was a huge factor in my PND.

Sorry, rant over, but the way this county works does piss me off, and yes I did vote.

The Cons might stand a chance of properly winning the next election - because the homeless can't vote.

RPO, I fail to see how your psuedo-moralistic stance offers any solution to the problem. You want to withdraw benefits from large sections of society. What do you think would be the effect of that?

why cant we have both? whats wrong with a socialist gov and society with pr ? thats the only way i see getting people in power who are not for capitalism.

"why cant we have both? whats wrong with a socialist gov and society with pr ? thats the only way i see getting people in power who are not for capitalism."

Because you need people to vote to withdraw from capitalism (i.e vote for the party that's proposing that) and no-one is going to based on current election results.

When you say "withdraw from capitalism" I'm not sure how drastically you mean. I'm assuming you mean basically going over to a planned economy.

You will soon find yourself with people like me leaving work because it's simply not economic to remain employed. Perhaps this is where DC is proposing to find all these jobs?

YANBU

My DH works full time (in the public sector) and comes out with £880 per month after tax! Half of that goes on rent (for our HA house), the rest on utilities, phone, internet, Sky (oops forgot we're not allowed that because we're poor), 2 mobile phones (PAYG), car insurance (1 car) and overpayment of HB. There's nothing left after all the bills are paid. If it wasn't for Tax Credits we would literally starve!

I'm a SAHM because after 11 years at home I can't get a fricking job. I can't train in anything new to help me get a job because the funding for adult education has been cut, so there are no course now.

Bloody vicious circle. If DH was paid a liveable wage we wouldn't need state help.

I don't think you necessarily need to increase wages AND lower housing costs. One or the other would make a huge difference. But the government (past and present) seem intent on propping up the housing market.

We're just looking at a house, it's reasonably priced - 105,000 - but in 1999 it sold for 39,995!

I can beat that Tyler, we've just had an offer declined for a house that hasn't been touched, not a lick of paint since they bought it in 2001 for £72k, they want the asking price of £469k and this is no where near London.

Can't beat the house prices but can top trump you on council tax.

2 bed HA flat - 3rd floor - in a run down part of town costs me more in council tax as a single person than my parents 4 bedroomed detatched house in the sticks with three adult occupants.

I didn't choose to live here. (I am grateful for the roof over my head dont get me wrong) but I shouldn't be penalised for living here either.

YANBU.

And I feel that it's all down to house prices. There will have to be house price adjustments if we want the next generation to afford to buy anything at all.

We were lucky (relatively) because we bought our first property in 2001, but we could never afford to buy our house now. And we have professional salaries. And we live in the North, in the sticks.

I do worry about my children and how will they afford housing costs...

No the economy is so skewed towards the needs of the poor. Some people deserve this support but theres many who don't -they as good as lie and steal from the state/tax payers.