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.

thesecondcoming I have no idea. A few years ago there were hundreds of jobs available, and the same people were sitting back saying they were better off on benefits. Which they are. Not their fault but not sustainable for the country.

Now there aren't the jobs out there so it seems like the wrong time to be tackling it. But then when is a good time?

If I knew how to tackle it I would be in politics. But I don't. So I'm not.

Disability benefit (I prseume they mean DLA?) was £16bn
ESA (the new Incapacity benefit) £0.769bn

"If I knew how to tackle it I would be in politics. But I don't. So I'm not."

But for the grace of god we all go. We only have to sit here and debate the pro's and con's of the ideas they put forward, and debate how it will effect people.........bet none of us would really like to be the one that has to make the tough decisions

(though I bet most of us would make the tougher decisions to hit those that can afford it before they hid the middle and lower income earners and those on benefits )

The financial difference between benefits and employment needs to be bigger to provide the incentive for people to seek work, and to get educated and trained to make themselves more employable. And that has to happen through wages getting higher or benefits being cut. It's not rocket science!

I think it's fairly obvious which approach will be taken.

problem is though violet cutting the benefits is't going to help those stuck on low incomes who are struggling to survive now.

Life on benefits is shit
Life as the working poor is even shittier.

I think there will be cuts in benefits and in public sector pay

My husband and I are both on a few pence above minimum wage and I think we have a comfortable lifestyle. As long as you dont live in London it is loads to live on imo. I dont get any benefits except money for childcare and £5 a week left over after that from tax credits, and child benefit. I still manage to have sky, a mortgage, a car, 2 holidays a year, out every weekend, regularly go to attractions such as the zoo etc, internet etc and I only work part time, (my husband does full time).

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 incredibly lucky in this country and we have a high standard of living.

One major problem is housing benefit has to be set so high to pay rents. People I know on housing benefit simply cannot get a good enough job to make it worthwhile working if it means losing housing benefit. If rents dropped by 50% then housing benefit could go down and working would become more worthwhile.

It is a chicken and egg situation. Cutting housing benefit will cause hardship until rents adjust down. Al part of the extremely painfull deflationary process of falling wages and prices that our economy has to go through.

what makes me really is that £86bn was spent on "financial stability".........for what???

cutting housing benefit won't just be hardship........it will mean even longer waiting for council houses as those in private rented are evicted for non-payment of rent, and in the mean time more families in B&B's and "hostels" in their "temporary" accomdation waiting for suitable housing.

It's a right fucking mess

Sunshine - You must be one of the lucky ones then because I sure as highwater am just managing to make my ends meet for my small family. Minimum wage is appallingly low and doesnt meet the living costs for the average family at all. the rate of inflation will increase and the rate of wages will stay the same or at least, not rise at the same rate.

I DO live in London and always have, does this mean that I need to live outside of London to afford to live?

This is always a touchy subject, but the fact of the matter is that something needs to be settled that doesnt plunge the country into fear and I'm not sure that slashing benefits left, right and centre (geddit!! )is the way to go!

well actually - who started letting people buy their own council homes - so there are not enough for those that need it????

I don't envy them either.....no matter they do they're going to upset people.

HOWEVER............I've said this before and I'll say it again.........coffee and tea are always avaiable in this house so when we're all on our knees you're welcome here to drink coffee

toccatanfudge - yes that will happen but eventually the private landlords will not have anyone to rent to and so will eventually have to accept lower rents if housing benefits fall.

Its the dislocation in between while that adjustmnt occurs and the personal costs of the individual families it affects that is the problem - as you rightly say.

We are surley heading for a severe deflationary depression where the price of everything will fall and many people will suffer the kind of hardship we have not seen in this country since the 1930s.

Kingbeat23 - I live in a south west coastal town and everyone is on minimum wage and all my friends are something like a waitress, nursery nurse, bar staff, chambermaid, warehouse man, street cleaner etc. Everyone I know is and lives a similar life to me. There are not really many proper jobs here but everyone lives a good lifestyle.

I supposedly live in one of the lowest 5% areas of the country for social deprivation and in one of the lowest areas for wages in the whole country but I live in a property right next to the sea, and the surroundings are lovely. I think just everyone is on low wage. I am definitely not complaining and think I am lucky to be English and not have to live in a country that really knows about struggling. I know it is different in London though as I work with a woman from London who moved here and she was shocked on how little everyone copes on here but its how you make your money stretch I suppose.

financial stability is important long term, and the money did need to be spent, no two ways about it - we'd be in a worse position now without it.

Cutting benefits is the ideal option but this won't happen. Raising the minimum wage wont happen either, this will hit small businesses ridiculously hard.

You can live on the minimum wage for sure, you just need to be more careful and not live beyond your means. Thats the source of the countries problem, people spending money they don't have.

elvislives- the family on the tv, with the six kids and £698 benefits WOULD be better off working, even if one of the parents was only on NMW, as the majority of that £698 would be CTC and CB for the six kids, which they would still get, WTC would make up for the loss of IS/JSA, and their actual wage would cover their rent and council tax, on a sliding scale, so that they would still get some HB AND CTB, as there is such a thing as 'income disrecards' so EVERYONE who comes of benefits is better off working.
The amounts vary, but I know that HB and CTB disregards are done in a way so that a single parent with any amount of kids is at least £50pw better off working, and it doesnt matter how much your rent is, as long as it isn't above the level your size of family qualifies for (this would apply, even if you are on benefits and not working).

With regards to the op, I think raising the amount of WTC for couples would help, as currently a single parent with one child and a couple with one child, who earn exactly the same amount of money, get exactly the same amount of TC even though one family has two adults to feed and clothe.
Other benefits take this into account i.e JSA/IS for one adult is £65 (roughly) and £100 for a couple(roughly), so I think WTC should be slightly more for couples, in line with other benefits.

"so EVERYONE who comes of benefits is better off working."

ermm right - that's why my lone parent adviser this time 2yrs ago looked did the "better off" calculation for me.....looked me straight in the eyes and said "you're best off doing that OU degree now and not thinking of working - you'll be £100 worse off a week if you go back to work now working 20hrs a week at minimum wage"......

And I can assure that when i was still with exH we would not have been better off unless he took a job earning over 13k a year - which works out at £6.25 (so higher than minimum wage) for 40hrs a week.

And the working poor are usually worse off than those on benefits (I equal it to shit for benefits and even shittier for the working poor)

and a couple with one child has the potential to go out and earn more money (jobs availability permitting) - a single parent doesn't have that option.

hmm - so you would cut my income support......while forcing me to stay at home

you'd force mothers to stay at home? but thats not helping the mothers who are lone parents.....you want them out working and the ones with husbands can stay at home??