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.

Idling, I would not want to pay Swedish taxes. That saps motivation as much as a benefits system.

Labour didn't increase wages. Most Govermnent know that unless you want to make the poor worse off you don't make UK businesses uncompetitive internationally with a minimum wage which is too high.

You could make able bodied benefits claimants work for 6 hours a day to earn their benefits for a start.

you sounded oddly like eddie izzard then stuck

Lets add a few facts to the debate

At November 2009 there were 12.45 million claimants of state pension. There were 2.74 million claimants of Pension Credit (3.35 million including partners).

There were 5.9 million working age benefit claimants at November 2009. At February 2010, there were 4.7 million recipients of Housing Benefit and 5.7 million recipients of Council Tax Benefit.

The majority of recipients of state payments are in fact pensioners. The majority of those of working age receiving benefit get it for housing and council tax. Lets make a big fuss about a few scroungers to distract from where most of the money goes!

If you want to cut state spending then you either delay when people can claim a pension or cut pensions or both. Then you tackle housing costs - in the short term by removing capital gains tax exemptions so that second homes are no longer such a good investment. Then you build state accommodation. Then you can deal with the less expensive issues.

But it takes a long while to raise pension ages as people have planned for an age so although that is indeed happening - at the moment you can force people out at 65 although you must "consult" them and they propose to change that. That of course has an impact on younger people getting jobs too but it would be fairer to remove the age 65 right to sack.

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00sh472/Saturday_Play_An_Inspector_Calls/
The Inspector Calls play, just on R4 this week is worth listening too if you're in communist mode

There have to be difficult choices.

It is madness to have low rates of capital gain tax on housing.

However long people have planned for retirement we aren't talking about starving them or forcing them into prostitution or crime.

I'll take that as a compliment, Dr Owen.

Xenia, what you are talking about is creating a work force who will be working for effectively £2 an hour.

This is: six hours a day times five which makes for thirty hours of work per week.

The dole is currently around £60 odd pounds per week.

That's £2 per hour.

Not to mention the fact that if there is work that needs to be done, than the unemployed can be employed at the minium wage at least thank you very much.

oh yes of course stuck it jsut reminded me of eddie izzards stand up when he says true story at the end of things!!

If every abled parent in the country went back to work, where is all the childcare going to come from, because good nurseries and childminders are like gold dust now, Does David Cameron have an answer for this?

'oh and I would like to add that if you chose to work on sex line to make ends meet then thats your choice but Im not going to stoop so low that I get men off over the phone. Its degrading and skanky and I would rather have my children see me not working than know the filth that would have come out of my mouth doing that..... its shameful... not somehting I woudl be bragging about either!'

Well thanks for your concern but didnt you say you had kids when you were 18 and 19. I wanted kids from 16 but couldnt as knew I couldnt afford them. I was DESPERATE for a baby from then and so was my husband but we had to wait five years and it was awful. Now I have had to wait until my child is getting the free entitlement so I can afford another so I dont really have much sympathy for your case I am afraid. My kids are my life and I have always wanted to be a mum but I get penalised for doing the right thing.

Im sorry but its not my fault if people dont plan things properly. I have had to, and I have had to make sacrifices. It makes me angry I guarntee much more angry than you are. I see it here all the time and so Im sorry I dont care for your opinion but thanks for your lovely comments

that is true as well stuckinthemiddlewithyou - most of the text messages are jobs filled by men to men when they think its a woman.

If every abled parent in the country went back to work, where is all the childcare going to come from, because good nurseries and childminders are like gold dust now, Does David Cameron have an answer for this?

2 have closed down locally due to the parents loosing their jobs no doubt so it's a bit of a catch 22, one relies heavily on the other.

Whoingod, that would indeed mean more nurseries. In the long term, that is a better alternative to de-skilling working parents and long term unemployment. I believe in France, Germany, Austria, childcare is free/heavily subsidised with means testing from around 3 years' old.

In an way, getting long term unemployed parents with childcare responsibilities into the workforce is a bit like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Far better to prevent favourable conditions to so many children being born on state support.

'"If you want to cut state spending then you either delay when people can claim a pension or cut pensions or both."

tatt are you serious?shock'

I dont agree with this. A woman used to come in to a place of work and she had worked her whole life until 65. Then she had to sope on a low pension and not much help. She could hardly heat her home. She deserves extra help as she has helped supported the country her whole working life, as well as many other pensioners in appalling conditions. Pensioners is sub standard care homes due to not having the funds to staff them or provide resources. This is definitely not an area I would ever recommend taking cuts from.

sunshine - but that is where the majority of the benefits spending goes!!!

Yes Swedish tax is higher than UK's but then the whole welfare system (roads, schools, hospitals, maternity rights etc)is so much better than this one. I'd be happy to pay higher taxes to have the same.

Tatt - not everyone has a private pension so cutting pensions surely would just mean that even more people would be claiming benefits, no? Not to mention terribly unfair towards the ones who have worked all their life and paid full NI contributions.

Mingg, I would try to cut waste and bureaucracy first, before raising taxes and expecting Swedish amenities. The last government seems very adept at spending money with questionable improvements.

Raising taxes have come and will continue. It is to get us out of this financial mess. I would be very surprised if there is any left over to raise the level of public services.

Blueshoes - I am not proposing to raise taxes to get a welfare system like in Sweden or in any of the Nordic countries. It has taken a long time and a lot of hard work for them to be in the position they are. Even if we tried I doubt UK would ever be able to achieve the same. What I was trying to say that yes they pay higher taxes but they also get a lot for their money and if the situation was same here I'd gladly pay higher taxes for it.

The point is blueshoes of course you'd cut waste first but those doing the wasting do not see that they are wasting money if that makes sense so it won't be cut because they don't see what needs cutting.
And a whole report will be commissioned to cut waste costing thousands.
Where I used to work they have just decided on a new computer system, they may have to sell off half the hospital to fund it but they feel it's money well spent. Somebody sat in A&E for 4 hours waiting may have preferred the money to have gone on another nurse but no IT contractors at £50 per hour is deemed a better use of resources for an NHS hospital. And most of them are crap otherwise the original system bought less than 4 years ago would still be in place.

Mingg, agree that the UK circumstances are different from Sweden and question whether we can get their system even with higher taxes. Not sure I like cradle-to-grave provision though, but that is where we differ.

mamatomany, perhaps a coalition government will prevent ministerial departments from chopping and changing so quickly. Or pushing through vanity projects without due consideration. We can only live in hope.

Tatt It is not a desirable option to cut pensions, or make people work longer, but facts are facts, and pensions account for a huge proportion of the benefits bill.

We may not like the idea of cutting pensions, or making people work longer, but something has to be done. If not pensions, then we have to find some other way that will reduce our debt significantly.

Families on benefits would not reduce the debt significantly.