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.

I get pissed off with all those people on any benefit who are taking the pss on them. Anyone who wants to live on benefits and doesn't want to work they give everyone one of us a bad name and I end up getting really upset and pssed off on these threads as I feel like I (and others like me) end up taking the flack for the scrounging bastards.

actually what p*sses me off more is those tax evading big earners will be sat there still sipping their champagne laughing at all us lower/middle income and benefit claimants bickering among ourselves as to who is going to have it worst as we all tighten our belts and they only have to pay a little more tax/VAT on their luxury goods

JSA currently allows x month to find a job similar to the one previously held - that gives professional people the chance to find work in the same field. After a certain amount of time it revokes to being any job - and it should mean just that - any paid employment. Too many people are far too picky.

Obviously those relying on childcare need to be limited to 8-6 rather than shift work but the same criteria should apply re JSA. There are not places in the the UK where no form of childcare is available, even rural areas have some form.

There are lots of ways the Government can cut benefits to help the deficit and to put the countries work ethic back and I do think the Con Dems will be far stricter than Labour but they need to be.

Getting rid of IS, getting tougher on JSA/IB/ESA along with all the other cost saving measures that could be done would mean less debt and more money in the pot for the disabled that truly cannot work.

and of course lets not leave the pensions pot out of it.........if you're going to start slashing away and altering the less "expensive" parts of the DWP's budget then pensions really ought to be looked at as well.........it constitues almost half of the DWP's spending.........

Pensions aren't really about work shy people so not really part of the thread. Like all areas they could be reviewed. I've always thought it unfair that its the same amount whether you've worked all your life or not - should be based on true contributions paid.

There are hundreds of things the government can do to decreased the countries deficit - benefits is a part of it and a start in the right direction.

pensions are part of the benefits department budget in fact the largest single spending by the DWP.

This thread has evolved to talk about benefits i general and how money can be saved - I think that all of the benefits should be discussed not just the ones that you consider to be benfits..

I agree Minthumbug - I have actually gone back to college now as a mature student and I am due to get my results for a BA (Hons) Early Childhood Studies degree (after failing everything at school and I have done this whilst working) next month but just cause I have got a degree doesnt mean I wont clean toilets, working in mcdonalds or anything else that I need to do to make money if I ever need to. All jobs are important and cause menial jobs are important people would soon complain if the streets werent clean, or no one was serving food.

I know someone that wouldnt complete an application for poundland as it was 'below him' but him and his girlfriend are happy to sit at home doing nothing with their kids. I dont see any job as below me but being lazy for no reason definitely is.

Tocca, I agree with you on everything.

I am currently debating applying for a job, but am doubtful to even get an interview for. Since we moved, the town we are in has very few job vacancies. 2 in the paper tonight, not counting the "deliver the yellow pages in your area" one.

I am stuck really with how much work I can do until DS is in school as DH is unable to be in sole care of the children for any more than 2-3hrs at a time due to his disabilities.

Yes, he gets IB and most of my reason to look for work before Daniel starts school is because I am terrified David Cameron will be taking his IB away leaving us well and truly f*cked. I dont enjoy staying home 24/7 but having gone back to work 2yrs ago and DH passing out while in the care of my then 6mnth old and 3yr old, would anyone seriously want to leave their children? Childcare is not an option due to severe cost.

Right, well thats all Im saying on the matter. I agree things need to change, but it needs to be each case on its own merits, NOT a sweeping cut regardless.

'Pensions aren't really about work shy people so not really part of the thread. Like all areas they could be reviewed. 'I've always thought it unfair that its the same amount whether you've worked all your life or not - should be based on true contributions paid.'

So that would mean women who stayed at home or worked part-time to look after children or elderly relatives would be pretty screwed.

oh but that's not part of the thread expat........we're talking about the lazy fuckers who refused to clean toilets for 10hrs and instead choose to stay on benefits

I think Danjarmouse has hit the nail on the head. There cant really be one set of rules can there. It needs to be decided case by case.

Tbh I get sick of threads like this because the people who slag us off wont acknowledge that they have no idea of the situations they are critocising!

YAY for spooky! Wise words!

Its coz I's on benefits!

LOL Well we need to stick together us "benefit scum" dont we

deffinatly..... I dont want my kids growing up thinking we are worthless because I have claimed benefits. Its gonna be fun with cameron in power convincing them of that as he hates single mothers too..... we are in for a rough ride.

'I dont see why people dont go to work for the minimum wage as it is more than enough to live on imo.

We are talking only about JSA I take it yes? I pray so becuase yet agin benefits is used here as a catch all for all people when circs vary so much.

If we lose HB then the kids lose something becuase we have nowt left to lose now, Dh and I gave all that up years ago. Dh works such long hours that the SW is worrried he will become ill; I survive on 4 hours sleep. People who see benefits as a one size fits all term for lazy people can go fuck off

I have a good degree, am on the path to an MA and would work in poundland if I could. but I can't.

Carers erntitles you to nothing outright: it's not a job in terms of qualifying you for WTC (I think it should be, we work as hard as anyone and save the Government typically £1200+ a week) but it is taxable. My poor firend managed to care full time for her dad, claiming carers, and get less money overall as she had to go up a TC income level and pay loads in the way of costs to care for him; wonderful. Of course it's fun caring for an elderly loved one with dementia as well.

If you get carers and your aprtner if you have one is also on a low income you may qualify for HB etc but there are no guarantees and very many do not. I hugely resent carers being classed as a benefit tbh becuase I feel as if I slog far harder now than in any job I ever did (and I have had a few corkers). Instead I get a mix of you are an angel and nasty claiming scum. I just long to be normal and unremarked.

Spooky - I hear you it is going to be a rough ride with Cameron, I am a single parent too am dreading it tbh.

Benefits do not make someone worthless, they help get someone out of a situation not always of their own doing. Yes some people milk the system but regardless of what system you implement people will abuse it if they can get away with it.

On QT last night here seemed to be an idea that we are moving towards an election next year

I would like to see a successful coalition where LD polciies take the ahrdest edge off the Tory ones (and I think they probably are atm) but nothing is set in stone IMO Governmentally right now

Yes - another one here dreading it as a single parent. I am lucky enough to have a job I enjoy but I still rely on a certain amount of income from child tax credit and working tax credit.

Jp - I am the same although my wtc and ct have been reduced because I claim a widows pension which is classed as income also means my actual income (when i finally go back to work) is taxed at a higher rate.

'Those are big 'ifs'. I can't see many employers gagging to employ somebody who's going to cost them time and money in sick leave and time off for hospital appointments. Certainly not when they can take their pick of the dozens of other non-disabled candidates who apply for every job nowadays. It's all wishful thinking. In an ideal world, a long-term unemployed builder with a bad back could retrain and could find an office job with a sympathetic employer. In reality, it's disingenuous to imagine the employment market works like that. It's even more complicated with things like mental illness, where you can be on top of the world one day and at the bottom of a black hole for the next week, without knowing when it's going to happen.

Yes, generational benefit dependency is a problem, and I also think it's disingenuous to deny that. But cutting benefits doesn't solve the problem. It doesn't make somebody with no skills more skilled. It doesn't make somebody who's been out of the workplace for years a better prospect. It doesn't make employers want to hire them any more. Cutting the benefits of families will mean thousands of children living in poverty, whilst their parents remain unable to find work. '

Some good point buried in tehre

I am a carer; I would work if we had childcare (any childcare where there is another child rpesent is not suitable for ds1, it would have to be a state funded nanny) but even then would need appts: as we have 2 disabled children, and ds2 has SEN, some weeks I am out three days; last month has been typical, 2/3 appts is cancelled at very last minute or rescheduled when I arrive and almost all lead to even more; we;ve just been referred to neurology, our SSD assessment ended up with 2 more trips booked..... no employer could handle it. If I worked nights around DH he'd be too shattered to work in the day from the night wakings (I am constantly shattered, there's no way I could do the fine and often dangerous work that DH does and be safe, I fell asleep at the wheel today and scared myself as it was).

Nopw, some people will say 'oh but we don't mean carers' but HB etc are all the things that keep our heads above water as Dh builds the business up (he was amde redundant and is starting froms crratch self employed).

The ESA thing could surely be improved with a modicum of common: some of these people dragged in will have terminal illnesses fgs. Sometimes in the last stages. I cannot see how they cannot be eliminated.

I;d like to see them try to interview ds3 about work....d'ya reckon being exposed to a three hour lecture about how pasta is great and hgow God built the worlkd but DS3 built all the houses will convince them?

Big companies could be "encouraged" to employ less abled people though. The last 2 I have worked for certainly had a policy for doing so - though I don't know if this is statute or general "seen to be doing good" stuff.

In my current company there are less "skilled" jobs such as gardening or delivering the post internally which are pretty much exclusively carried out by people with SN. On the other hand, my main IT contact is almost certainly on the autistic spectrum. He is a very, very clever guy. I also worked with a totally blind chap, who had to keep telling people to stop fussing over his guide dog, but held down a very good job.

There could be more of this. Though these aren't the workshy I am talking of, rather those who might find it harder to find work.

What if you were getting 700 quid a week on benefits, and then got a job paying 350 quid a week. You'd be an idiot to take it, wouldn't you?

But what if you got your wages of 350 quid a week, and you continued to get benefits of 350 quid a week? You'd still be raking in the 700 quid a week, so you wouldn't be losing out.

The State, on the other hand, would be saving 350 quid a week.

Why, then, would we need to cut benefits? We'd be saving tons simply by allowing people to take low paid jobs and topping up their earnings.

I know this isn't fully thought out, and you'd probably have to have a time limit on how long people's wages were topped up for, but it's a start, without anyone losing out financially.