in thinking that the Government cannot possibly ensure people are better off working than on benefits unless they increase wages massively?

[TheJollyPirate]

TBH I cannot see how the Govt are going th achieve their aim to make sure "nobody is better off financially on benefits than in work".

I work part-time as I have a son with a disability. I take home £849 and get Tax credit of £190 plus Child benefit of course - Working Tax credit adds another £50 - all in all just over £1100. I am just over the limit for housing benefit and all other help although if DLA is approved for my son that may change a bit.

One of my families gets housing benefit of £700 a month plus tax credit, plus income support, plus child benefit. On paper at least they out-strip me and unless wages drastically improve (oh - was that a recession I just saw over there) then nothing much CAN change. The Govt are talking big but cannot deliver no matter what they say.

I will stay worse off financially than the family I work with who will remain unemployed because wages are NEVER going to amount to enough for them to get work and maintain their home. Not their fault and I am more fortunate in other ways but financially - nah - they are doing a bit better than me (but probably only just).

I am watching the Govt but not holding my breath on this one.

Or do you know different?

If so - explain because I am being a bit thick about it.

Please note this is not an anti - benefits thread - I get Tax credits and would jump at the chance of some housing benefit too if I could get it.

By decreasing benefits.

In what way is it the Government's responsibility to increase wages?

And I agree that in some circs, benefits should be reduced. Why are the family you're talking about not working?

I agree, it's the only way they could do it without plunging thousands of families into poverty, but hey that's what the tories do, make the poor ever poorer.

I agree long term benefit claimaints should be encouraged (strongly) to come off benefits, but I really don't think decreasing benefits is the way to go.

I wasn't suggesting it should be done by the way. Just that other than increasing wages it is the only way of making people better off working.

Where are all the jobs for the benefit claimants to go to??

I do have to say I am rather amused by the idea they're going to get all these people back to work while at the same time putting more people out of work by cuts in the public sector........where are the jobs that these people already on benefits (and those that may well end up on them after the cuts are made) are going to get?

And where is the affordable housing for when you have forced people back into work that don't cover their everyday househo(a ld costs, because not everyone on benefits is in council, or even rented properties, some of them were doing rather well for themselves before finding themselves on the benefits and have their own homes. If they have to take "any" job chances are they won't be able to keep up the payments on their mortgage (and I'n not just talking about feck off huge mortgages, people on smaller mortgages find themselves in the same boat).

And the childcare for weekend/shift workers, and affordable for everyone?

And the public transport for those on benefits that don't have a car (really contrary to popular belief many people on benefits can't afford to maintain a car) and are through circumstances living somewhere where there aren't many jobs so need to travel to get to work

The government likes to make it sound so simple.........

I strongly suspect they will cut benefits quite sharply.

It is obscene that the state lines the pockets of shareholders by propping up desirory rates of pay through tax credits. You can not live on minimum wage and this has to change. so no, yanbu.

MoonFaceMama I agree I've been saying the same thing as you for years. Greedy Employers and shareholders have had it too good for too long.

For a party that thinks there isn't a rightful role for government in people's private lives, they sure are going to interfere drastically in people's private lives with this moralistic, judgemental concept if they go through with it.

Who misses GB now?

If the government had a much better system for benefits like they do in other European countries, eg Sweden, then they wouldn't have to fork the bill. Swedes pay their union a fee every month to cover them for unemployment benefit. When they become unemployed, the union pays out. It's that simple. The amount you get has nothing to do with how many kids you have, if you're married, divorced, male or female, etc. Or whether you get maintenance. It's all down to how much you pay your union. You are treated like an individual and with respect.

And yes hello, wages are low in so many professions in this country. And we women are the ones earning those low wages. Remember how long it took the UK to agree to a minimum wage? And it's still way too low. No wonder there is so much poverty here. This country should be ashamed of itself and needs a kick up the arse to bring itself into the 21st Century.

if they cut the benefits,(which are already breadline,with little room for manouvere) then what do they expect people to do??

will there be a sharp rise in shoplifting from food stores?? people have to eat,and so do their kids

I just don't see how they're going to magic up all these jobs when there are going to be so many cuts, as toccata pointed out.

benefits cannot go down, it's already obvious they are just about enought to see you through/survive. Minimum wage HAS to rise, it just has to. How many times do we hear of companies like Tesco getting millions, if not billions a year profit but yet they pay most the staff about min. wage, and why would they pay more if they don't have to? The gap is too wide. Increase minimum wage.

The family I refer to in my OP are not working as the Dad was laid off and hasn't found work since. Now everything has gone up and he and the rest of them are trapped in a vicious cycle. It's hideous - not saying all benefit claimants are looking for work - some plainly are not but many are.

Yes - decreasing benefits had occurred to me but just not sure what they are going to cut or where all these extra jobs are going to come from either. As T&C says - they are trying to make it sound so simple when it isn't.

mumblechum - it's not the Govts job to increase wages (or perhaps it is I don't know - too late, am tired and can't debate it) but just not sure how they can achieve their aim tbh.

But surely you don't think we can just carry on as we are? On the TV recently there was a programme where (minor) celebrities lived with unemployed people. One family were getting £698 a week in various benefits.

How is that realistic? No unskilled job is going to pay wages anywhere near that level (over £36k after tax, so actually over £50k). There is no incentive for that family to go to work, and they'd chosen to have 6 kids since he lost his job.

Some people feel they should be able to live off the state indefinitely. And before you all shout that those 6 kids will pay tax when they grow up it is far more likely that they won't work either.

Benefits should be for people who can't work, not people who don't want to.

The only way the maths will work is cutting benefits. Wages cannot rise - the UK would be massively uncompetitive otherwise and it is for sure the public sector cannot be paid more. In fact wage deflation is already happening and I suspect public sector wage cuts will happen alongside benefit cuts.

Welcome to the world of austerity that Greece/Ireland are going through. I predict civil unrest will inevitably follow in the UK as well.

but the point is elvis - most people on benefits don't want to be on them indefinitely.

As much as I'd like to see then clamp down on the "scroungers" - I can't say I'm delighted of the prospect of then peanlising people like me and the majority of other benefit claimants (many of those right now have worked most of their lives until recent huge job losses).

Contrary to popular belief the amount of money spent on Income Support and JSA is tiny compared to the rest of the Benefits Department pot.

Much of it goes onto housing benefit and pensions...........the former of which is claimed by working people as well as those on benefits.

2008/2009 JSA claims (current years obviously not available yet) cost the DWP £2.881bn.........total spend for the DWP was £135bn.

here

DH lost his job in January. Managed to find some work in Feb, but jobs are slim on the ground at the moment, particularly jobs not on min wage. there are no jobs around in the profession he was in; several of the small companies have all closed and the larger ones appear to be struggling too.

At the moment DH is better off on the dole - only because if he is on the dole, we get our loan, and half the mortgage paid for, which we wouldn't get if he were working.

Insurance policies wont last forever, and he'll need to be working before September when he'll get no dole money at all because "I earn too much" (though the insurance will be okay until Feb next year, so long as DH not working).

it's shit isn't it Elf.

I for one don't sit here on my "cushy" benefits........actually as HB actually paid the money into my account today as they should have done first time they haven't cocked up since I moved... and look at all the "lucky" working people and think they have it easy.

In some respects I guess it's slightly less scary already being here where I am right now, because at least I don't have the fear of losing my job/home and how I'll cope.