in thinking it is getting impossible to discuss the welfare state on here any more

[size20knickersandfatter]

Disclaimer: I am all for the welfare state. I firmly believe in the NHS, and have no desire for a return to workhouses or other such draconian matters.

However, it seems to be that ever since the Tories started making cuts, it's impossible to even question on here the morality or the fairness of the system. I'll admit it - I don't think the system was fair, at all.

I earn a very average salary. As a result I am only slightly better off than I would be on benefits and considerably worse off when my childcare costs are deducted. It's difficult not to feel resentful when you're in that position.

• I don't believe throwing money around will mean any less children will "go to bed hungry."

• I don't believe benefits should be more lucrative than paid work. Ever. And at the moment, they are. I think the fact that they ever were is disgraceful.

• I think the welfare state is a crutch in a crisis. Disability excepted, it is not a walking stick through life.

I also know there will be hundreds of yawns, this AGAIN, do I want children to starve, I want a return to the workhouse actually no I want the poor shot actually I want them deported ha ha ha what a bitch what a cow what a horrible person. Oh and she hasn't mentioned widescreen TVs LOL.

No, actually, I'm none of the above, I'm just an ordinary person struggling to make ends meet myself. It's very easy to be lofty and high handed and sentimental when you're on board the gravy train yourself. As it is, I don't want benefits to disappear but I don't know just one piss taker, I know several, and don't believe I'm not typical in this.

Welfare - benefits - cost a FORTUNE and people are deluding themselves if they think they don't. The cost of other services doesn't mean welfare isn't a massive cut. It's like saying "that holiday is cheap, look how expensive it is to spend a fortnight in Disneyland." The fact is, it's unsustainable.

I'm happy for people to be given the support they need but at the moment I think some people do think "give people on benefits all the money they like and it will end poverty."

It won't.

I have to say I agree with crumbled re MPs pay. If we don't pay them well we will just have wealthy MPs doing the job.

I don't get why people say 1.9% of total spending is tiny and not worth focussing on but are appalled at the massive cost of MPs wages.

I think the cap is to chip away at the welfare state. It is done by pandering to the popular press and thick people who think that unemployed benefit claimants live the life of Riley and appealing to their worst natures. It's a nasty notion that will end up costing more money than it purports to save, and Cameron and Osborne, despite being thick posho spivs whose only encounter with the real world is folding fucking towels in a department store, know this. But they're doing it anyway, because they know they can get away with it by relying on people's worst instincts.

Oh I see. Someone seems to have done a number on you.

It's to stop people receiving more in benefits than they would earn on an average wage.

HTH.

right so lets cut 600 MPs £20k per year.

now we have saved £12million pounds. that's £12,000,000

and our national debt is £1triliion. that's £1,000,000,000,000

so about 1 million times larger than the saving from cutting MPs salaries by £20k

Perhaps the OP could explain in what way it has become impossible to have a discussion about benefits on here?

Do you mean people disagree with you? If more people disagree with you than agree then that doesn't mean discussion has not happened.

Perhaps the OP could also put forward a solution to what she sees as the problem.

Parroting what the Daily Fail tells you, or what the rich and powerful tell you is unsustainable doesn't count.

Why do you never consider that further lining the pockets of the rich is unsustainable?

I'm all for MPs being paid more.

^^It's to stop people receiving more in benefits than they would earn on an average wage.

Yes, you just keep on believing that.

There should be fewer MPs. The whole system should be shook up really, it's hardly changed since Victorian times. Do we really need MPs spending all that time in Westminster in these days of instant communication?

Yanbu. The benefits cap is a great idea.

It will cause hardship and homelessness which will ultimately cost the country a lot more than just paying out benefits would have done. Yes, absolutely smashing.

Waffly I think she means people start claiming that they want to throw people into the gutter, or start going on about goats lolololol.

Basically "defenders" tend to lump the entire welfare system with people who are taking the mickey or stealing from it, so they then defend the welfare system without inconveniently having to defend the people taking the mickey or stealing from it.

Wallison: I've no problem with believing it. Interesting spin though :)

I don't see any of the benefits cuts brigade offering any solutions. Do you really think Just cutting benefits without addressing all the other issues outlined on this thread is the answer?

You really think it's that easy?

The system is so complicated that it means some people are really struggling on benefits and others seem to be doing quite nicely. I'm not in favour of cuts for people who can hardly make ends meet now. I am in favour of a fairer system.

Cutting benefits is not going to make a million well paid jobs appear.

Cutting benefits is not going to make rents more affordable.

Cutting benefits is not going to make childcare more affordable.

Cutting benefits is not going to make utility and food bills more affordable.

I could go on...

Me too, Viviennemary. I would suspect that we disagree on what would constitute a 'fairer system' though. Mine would be: lower house prices brought about through a comprehensive building programme incorporating both private and public sector so that we don't spunk over £20 bn a year on lining landlords' pockets with big investors such as pension funds playing a great part in this as happens on the Continent, greatly subsidised childcare facilities so that people on minimum wage aren't shelling out half of their hourly rate on said childcare, scrapping of zero hours and short hours contracts so that working people know what they will be earning on a weekly basis without arbitrary changes to their income meaning that they drift on and off benefits even though they are eminently willing to do said work. That's just for starters. I'm sure I could think of more. None of this would involve cutting benefits, but it would at least address the reasons why people are on benefits, which is surely the best place to start.

usual smarter people than me have failed to find a solution so I very much doubt I'll come up with a fix while laid out on my sick bed I just have a stomach bug, thighs haven't looked this slim in years

I would support a more general move to providing services to people rather than throwing money at them. Definately have cheaper more flexible child care (which would cost a fortune). Cheaper public transport to help people look for and get to work.

In the very long term something needs to be done about the North South divide. In theory the h2h should help, if anyone can afford to travel on it. Making work from home more available and more flexiblty in jobs. It's so much cheaper to live up North, we have lots of room just need more jobs.

I look at it in a very basic way, country is spending too much and needs to cut back. I'm lucky enough that I have no experience of using the benefits system (apart from childbenefit) so I wouldn't know which bits of it could be cut.

Benefit fraud is an absofuckinglutely tiny percentage of the welfare bill.

The cost of reducing it to nothing would be much more than letting it stand.

I think I'm missing a comma between 'pockets' and 'with' but hopefully you get my drift.

Oh yes and a living wage rather than minimum wage. If a business can't afford to run itself without its employees having their income subsidised by tax credits, then it is not a viable business. It is being subsided by the tax-payer.

I read the other day that people born after 1990 will probably never be able to afford a property - any property. Not everyone has the bank of mum and dad and, in any case, care bills will erode any hope of an inheritance.

If you pursue a traditional course of getting qualifications, going to work and so on you will be living with your parents until you're 60. If, however, you can access social housing - you've got your own place - usually for life.

I wonder what will happen when there is a genuine tipping point where it seems madness to bother to go to work.

But plenty of people who live in social housing work,so I don't really see your point.

wallison but it is not only employees within the private sector that receive WTC.

But within the private sector, depending on the service, if a living wage is enforced, there would undoubtably be a butterfly effect on those businesses. Closures? Relocations abroad? How is this going to benefit those employees?

And those public sector workers on WTC? Well the top up wage bill to living wage will come from taxes, undoubtably meaning cuts in other areas. It is not as easy as saying the NHS is not a viable business as they pay some employees minimum wage.

I also think it is important to note that all main parties agree cuts are necessary. We are stuck with them regardless of the party politics of those in power.

The benefits headlines are helping to bury the bad news. Local gvmt cuts never seem to get as much drama whipping coverage do they?

Tedmundo, all of those arguments were trotted out when the minimum wage was introduced and guess what: none of it happened.

The zero hours and short hours contracts are even worse: if you honestly do no know how many employees are necessary to run your business on a day to day basis then you should not be in business at all.