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.

It's almost like this has been planned..a situation where families can not afford to live even when both parents are working full time.

I think industrialists and employers were in full support of women taking up jobs, this played right into their hands.

It is only right that a woman should be paid the same as a man for the same job. However the main effect has been that women have less choices than ever before because employers want 2 for the price of one. This creates greater productivity and profit for the same over all wage.

I think revolution is the only way ahead. We have nominal democracy and no social mobility. It's a dreadful state of affairs.

The housing costs are definitely at the core of the problem. Back in the 50s/60s the average house cost 3-4 times the average wage.

It's been exaccerbated by the selling off of council housing, which in turn created a private landlord boom and inflated house prices. The landlords are still receiving well above the odds from social housing tenants, so the prices remain inflated. Ironically if we had less people relying on benefits then the housing market would stablise.

Eric-thanks for that cleared it up for me!

I must add, while you're friend may be cramped, she at least has a roof over head? No? Glass half full ?

CB should be abolished - children are a private choice and the State should not support such decisions one way or another (not least because to do so merely encourages the least appropriate people to be parents).

The minimum wage should be abolished also.

No-one should receive benefits of any kind if they earn above average wages.

State meddling (and pointless spending) has got us into this situation and needs to stop.

As Ronald Reagan said, the scariest nine words in the English language are "I'm from the Government and I'm here to help."

Lady - yes, she's not ungrateful, and her DH works so they do benefit from the subsidised rent. They choose to stay in council and wait for a bigger lace rather than move into the insecure private letting sector. Your view of how social housing should be is exactly how it should be! But isn't.

Too many people is too small a country. Enough said.

NoSuchThingAsSociety I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not... But as a society we're to blame for people being so unskilled and let down by our education system that they can't support themselves and have nothing else to ocupy themselves with but popping out children. We therefore do have some responsibility to help them, no matter what you think of the situation - they're here. Deal with it.

What I'm more interested in is how you stop the cycle. I do think that there should be a maximum of 3 bedrooms in any social housing (parents, boys, girls). And that you need to encourage people to practise skills which we take for granted: being able to get up on time and out the door to a commitment, making sure their children get to school, dressing appropriately for work, etc.

We have no idea how lucky we are.

I've never lived in social housing and until reading on here I didn't realise it was so varied (on many levels) and some run on gold/silver systems (?) I just figured if you were jobless you'd live there. But thanks for making sense of it for me!

Northerngirl, in the 60/70's house prices may have been 3-4 times the average wage but it must be remembered too that it was just one persons wage.

If a married women with children chose to work her money usually bought luxuries and a better life.

As a mother of two young children I basically feel that I am a wage slave to line the pockets of share holders and business owners. I certainly don't feel that I have either choice or through work the ability to make a better life for my children.

I also, don't see the point in child benefit. I don't claim it as £18/20 pounds a week is neither here nor there.

But I don't believe people should be supported for having children in such a way.

CB was introduced after the war to ensure that children had enough to eat. With childhood obesity on the rise I think it's safe to say they've eaten enough.

I also, don't see the point in child benefit. I don't claim it as £18/20 pounds a week is neither here nor there.

That's because you can afford not to claim it. I literally can't believe that you have read all the posts on this thread, particularly my early ones, and think that £80 is an insignificant sum. CB is something else that we rely on because my wages don't pay the bills.

northerngirl - but do you not see that the more the State has taken on, the worse things have become?

Treat people like children and they will behave like children. Allow them to take responsibility for their lives (which means allowing them to f*ck up completely) will encourage them to behave responsibly.

Education has gone through the floor - more people were functionally literate in the 19th century than nowadays...again, thanks to state involvement.

Lady of the Manor, you are ignorant beyond belief [sock]

It is perfectly possible for someone to suffer malnutrition and still be over weight.

I'm sure many feckless, workless and lazy individuals feed their children crap but those children still need feeding. What would you do?

check before posting even if I have steam coming out of my ears.

My point being- CB was originally introduced to bridge the gap after rationing. We don't need to bridge that gap anymore.

Education has gone through the floor - more people were functionally literate in the 19th century than nowadays...again, thanks to state involvement

Highly unlikely, most people were lucky if they received two years part time education at a church school. Even in the 1960's kids left school at 14 unless they stayed on.

The only difference then was that employers were happy to take people on and then train them.

CB was introduced mainly because women were not prepared to have their children starve while their men folk pissed their wages up the wall.

I believe also, that the NMW should be increased, but I also reckon that salaries should be the same across the board...

therefore all firemen are paid the same, all finance managers are paid the same, all shop assistants are paid the same and so on and so on....

I haven't though this trough entirely, but I think it would be fairer if it was the jobs that determined the salary and not the individual.... (and annual bonus perhaps for length of service?)

OTOH, it opens up the arguement of someone sitting twiddling thumbs and being paid the same amount of the person in the next company who works their arse off...

(being very careful here) Let me tell you that it's no wonder some people on benefits consider not going back to work..in some cases benefits are higher than that of some salaries....am i going off the thread here....sorry

Well I claim child benefit and pay it into the children's pensions and buy handbags with it, I don't care whether I need it or not if it's the only thing I'm ever going to get back from the state I'm bloody well having it

kazbaretc - like under communism, you mean?

Let me tell you that it's no wonder some people on benefits consider not going back to work..in some cases benefits are higher than that of some salaries....am i going off the thread here....sorry

In terms of cold hard numbers, DH would be better off on the dole right now but things will never get better for us if he takes that line so he works at a small loss.
Plus it's worth not having to go into a job centre and justify your existence.

I wonder if people really do have this fuck the poor attitude in RL or if they are just trolling?

NoSuchThing, I had a feeling someone would say that just after I clicked post...

That's not what I meant though and like I said, I hadn't thought it through entirely.

I'm trying to change the world here from my front room!

I do believe that people in general should have a more balanced lifestyle though, so I suppose we've got to start somewhere...

Then again...why should someone who has built up a great business and earned a wedge have to forfeit so that someone from jeremy kyle should earn a bit more....

See, I have arguments on noths sides...I'd be a terrible politician :)

*both