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.

Sorry, meant to say, I can totally see your point Tatt

Yes something has to be done. How about slapping nice, big fat taxes on second homes and independant schools?

Stick the higher tax rate up to 60%?

Ratchet up corporation tax while we're at it.

Anything but cut pensions, that's just plain blood thirsty.

Tax the rich, they got us into this mess.

I would love to be able to work longer tbh, I cannot afford to just stop working at 60 or 65 and I supposedly have a good pension as a teacher.

Stuck, the rich got us into this mess? Probably some sections of it. Equal responsibility to those who borrowed beyond their means.

Don't think your Robin Hood economics will quite work the way you intend it somehow.

For one thing, if you price independent education (personal bugbear of yours?) out of the reach of the 'rich', they will join the already creaking state system and compete for places with your dcs at the good schools.

I would like to work until at least 70 if I am able, I probably will have to do some form of work for the rest of my life.

I disagree. At the very least we should remove the charities status from private schools - they are in no way in the spirit of what charities were meant to do (they are also hilariously a waste of money in many cases).

The rich distorted the housing market with buy to let properties, second and holiday homes.

The rich who ran the city of London shafted the rest of us leading to the bail out which will now be paid for by the poor.

I agree that cutting pensions is bloodthirsty, but so is cutting benefits to people already struggling to make ends meet, and living in dire poverty.

The point I am trying to make, is instead of cutting benefits even further, whether that be pensions or means tested benefits, or indeed any benefits paid to the sick or disabled or their carers etc etc, I'm sure there are many other ways of drastically reducing the national debt without resorting to cutting benefits from the neediest people.

As a hairy socialist I am not one to defend independent schools with no cause. However we live in an area surrounded by independent schools and our closest one seems very involved with the community, we get a lot from living near it.

My point about independant schools was simply an example of a kinder way to recoup cash.

We cannot start taking money from pensioners and the unemployed to pay for the bailout, that is just sick, plain sick.

Of course, we could stop causing trouble in the middle east - that would save us a few bob.

I think we are in such a mess that it is going to take kind and less kind methods to recoup the money tbh.

Trident for a start - do we really need that anymore?

How about the Olympics? Surely we can live without people in lycra running in circles?

Stuck - so agree with you about the Olympics

With regard to cutting pensions are you thinking of this as a temporary or permanent measure? Do you all have massive private pensions or how are you going to survive when you are at the retirement age? How will the ones on benefits now survive when they retire?

Stuck, you are clearly more determined to play grudge economics than in seeking a genuine solution. Somewhat sceptical that your measures would make any dent in the deficit.

The elephant in the room will have to be tackled.

Mingg - to be honest, I cant even think of my retirement right now. That said, I know that I am being left 2 healthy inheritances from my dad and my aunty, which as I have already discussed with DH, will be put away out of touch and mind until we are old and grey.

Of course, I am hoping to be in full time work within the next 2yrs so will hopefully be able to put money away myself for that time.

For long-term unemployed who are able and capable of work but choosing not to, its their own future, but I honestly do not think there will be such thing as a "state pension" by the time I am 65. (I am only 27 now)

Riven, that is the exact category I fall into.

Riven, I understand that situation. In your case, your dd has special needs, so that is clearly not foreseeable.

I will always advise a woman to keep her hand in her career, just in case her partner does not provide, whether through ill health, death, divorce or job loss. I grew up in a country with very little healthcare provision, and that is what my mother advised me.

Those lessons will have to be re-learnt.

So Dan do I understand correctly - you need benefits now but your old age is sorted because you are due 2 large inheritances? Cutting pensions won't therefore affect you whereas cutting benefits would? I won't need state pension either yet I strongly object to pensions being cut

I don't think the state pension will exist in the future. Certainly not in its current form. Won't be enough money, end of.

there are too few people in work to support those receiving state pyments. Making people who can work be less fussy about what work they will do is important but is dealing only with the margins.

To really address the problem you have to deal with where the big money is - and that starts with pensions. As a start the age-related tax allowance could be abolished for those aged 65-74 and the rise in pension age could be phased in faster.

The housing market is distorted by second homes - many owned by the bankers who got the country into this mess. The tax treatment of second homes is a disaster.

well I fell pg with my first (extremely planned - if a little quicker to come along than we expected) child at 20. Ds2 came along when things were going swimmingly, DS3 came along when things were tight, but we worked hard and got ourselves out of the hole we were in.

Now I'm 31 and living on benefits, we 3 children on my own, was living on benefits with exH for a while last year

I tell you 10yrs if you'd have told me that in 2010 I would be a single parent living on benefits, and that my exH would also be out of work and on benefits I would have laughed in your face. Even 5yrs in 2005 when we were living on £15-20 a week, I would have laughed at you.

I soon stopped laughing when I found myself one of the statistics. And know several others who are in my situation at the same age.

I know a young girl (she's 19 now, her fiance 18 - they've been together 3yrs) who is 20 weeks pg. It wasn't planned, but she did want children in the future. She's living with my BF that I mentioned above, with her fiance.

Are they rushing out to get a council house? Are they looking forward to a life on benefits?

Hell no, her DP works, sadly just lost his job at the mechanics, but is still doing pizza delivery and has just increased his hours to make more money before the baby is born. They're looking for a private rent, close to where I live, because she wants her DS to go to s a good school, and have a good future ahead of him.

Of course there are the ones I see around town who don't work, who sit loudly proclaiming how they're on the list for a bigger house, and all the rest of the stereotypes.

But they're not all like that, personally I don't know any of the young single or older gimmers like myself who consider a life on benefits as a short term, or even a "never" possibility.

Wise words blueshoes