You could easily get to the 500 quid a week level Jen if Housing and Council Tax benefit is taken into account and it looks like that's what will happen from that article.

I heard on the news something about a change in claims for separated couples,it seems they're trying to target those who claim to be separated whilst in reality they're not.I do agree Jen that it's worrying the neediest will suffer the most while others continue to do what they do best play the system.

Sam Bowman of the Adam Smith Institute, a pro-free market think-tank, said: "The government's welfare reforms are a good step towards reducing people's dependency on benefits, but they are only part of the story.

"The minimum wage prices the most unskilled and inexperienced out of work and it should be abolished if the welfare reforms are to have the impact the government hopes."

 So, this twerp wants the poorest workers to be paid less?

Presumably, seeing as Cameron is saying that they want to make work pay and make sure that workers are better off than the unemployed, that would mean tax payers topping up the wages of these poorest paid workers even more. I don't see the logic, unless you want businesses subsidised by government!

And this from a 'pro-free market' think-tank?

Thats what I was wondering too... friggin' Tories

so lets get this straight... Unemployment has just risen again and the government want all these supposedly "fit" people to go get work..


Okay...

Pro-free market as in "somewhere right of Hitler".

Of course he does Blizzard, the affluent self serving right wing have always maintained a sticks for the poor and carrots for the rich mindset.  He wants the state to bankroll spiv employers because although his type claim they don't believe in state reliance and handouts, they actually do believe in state handouts and subsidies for their kind of people.  Just like all those Tory MPs who wagged their fingers at the poorest, bemoaned the 'benefits culture' and declared "there's no such thing as a free lunch" while claiming for moat cleaning and duck houses.

Funny how unemployment was at its highest when there was no minimum wage and funny how exactly the same argument was put forward before the minimum wage was introduced, it was rubbish then and it's rubbish now.

There was some idiot called Mike on the BBC today... phoned in from Nottingham.

He said he had offers from the job centre but declined them all and that he doesn't want to work. He also said that its better that he gets benefits than the government waste it on war.

The guy sounded a total tw*t... annoys me that everyone has to work and pay for him to sit on his arse. The only people I can ever understand being on benefits is if they have a physical disability, physiological problems or unable to find any work at all. Possibly older students who are also in full time education trying to get the qualifications I could understand. This guy on the phone in today had job offers... but just couldn't be bothered and turned them all down.

Also, the guy on the phone said he had been on benefits for 2 years... I thought they stop giving benefits if they turn down a job that was available to them?

Oh, the Mike interview is on the link erin posted.

TBF we need to plan for the future though - so whilst there may not be enough work available at the minute we can't use that as an excuse to avoid tackling our out of control benefits system.  Further there are more jobs available than many people realise it's just that they are easily turned down as people are better off on benefits.

The thing is Meaty how do you know that the guy is genuinely on benefits. Considering that Ian Duncan Smith has just admitted lying about the numbers of fraudulent claims etc it wouldn't surprise me to find out this 'lazy scrounger' was simply a tory voter pretending to be a dole cheat.
That being said I know a few people who get massive amounts of taxpayers money for doing bugger all - but then there isn't a grassing line for MPs or the Royals is there?

  Veggie!

I agree some people are better off on benefits (not all tho) but surely they are doing it the wrong way round? Rather than making life on benefits harder first, (which in some cases needs to be done) surely it would be wiser and more helpful to those who dont want to be on benefits to tackle the lack of work avaliable first, then the benefit issue or at the very least do both at the same time?

While you could be right i live in Notts and could quiet easily believe it lol

Maybe although I don't think it's all that simple.  To create the jobs we need to get the economy moving again and to do that we need to save money - the current benefits system wastes money therefore by correcting this the economy is being helped which is ultimately creating the jobs.

It's all the poor's fault! Well that's what the Tories think and their lackey Lib dems.. ho's.All those bankers...please stop picking on them...they're crying now.

All mothers of children over 7 to have to register for work: STORY HERE

Thats been the case for single parents for a while, i think thats changing how much married mothers get

It's another vote loser for them, though. This lot are really good at shooting themselves in the foot.

To create jobs, we need the banks lending money to businesses, we need consumers to be in jobs, not losing their jobs, or fearing losing their jobs, and we need the government to support job creation and consumer confidence.

With unemployment going up, all the savings the government are hoping to make with their cuts programme, will be going out as benefit payments, even with their changes to the system.

The only jobs this will create are extra jobs in the Benefits Office.

They won't be creating too many of those, though. I sign on at 2.39pm. I recently found out that 20 other people have the same appointment time at the same desk. And yes, there are another 20+ at 2.40pm. It takes at least 4 minutes to process a signing. Plus the time to swap one person with another. 'Tis madness

Oh sheet! 

Well, all the savings will be going on overtime payments, then! 

every govt.for the last 30 years has wanted to reform benefits, and it should have been done during the  term of the last govt. when unemployment was low and  jobs were plentiful.there were 4 million jobs created over the last decade, i think  reports said that 90% of those jobs were taken  by non uk residents and hardly affected  our   unemployment  rate...which suggests that there is a hard core of  feckless adults being supported by  us the tax payer , who just prefer not to work.i'm all for any reform which boots that lot up the jacksi and gets them out to work.

the welfare state was created  as a safety net so that people in unfortunate circumstances were not left starving/homless\dying in poverty. it was never designed as a life style choice which it seems to have become for a hard core.

a cap of 26k a year, is  good news, if people want 5/6/7/8 kids then they need to  consider if they can pay for them, most of them cant but  proceate anyways and leave (them) i.e. us to foot  their bills for the next 20 years, these offspring  more often  than not turn out to  be the very adults that'll mug you for your pension as  you trundle out of the post office, ungrateful sods....

The Tory legacy from Thatcher times has come back to bite them in the bum. Back then they shifted swathes of people off the dole and onto sickness benefits ... manipulating the unemployment figures.  Now they are targeting the disabled and huge swathes of disabled people are being thrown off the sick and having to claim JSA.

What makes me angry is these are PEOPLE they are dealing with ... their actions affect people's lives. People don't fit into boxes and are not numbers. Many genuine people are being unfairly targeted because of the minority of benefit "scroungers". IDS has even admitted they exaggerated the benefit fraud figures.

http://fullfact.org/blog/benef...e_down_rhetoric-2490

the welfare system is full of over-populating scroungers, there are lots of jobs out there (i know because i saw 10 advertised in my local paper!)  they all sit in their big  - state paid - houses with sky and 60ft tv's doing nothing all day except procreate and smoke dope.  unemployed should be housed in hostels - not near hard working daily mail reading good tories, they should be tethered to that home with enough loose rope to attend job centres and the local park to clean graffiti/ pick rubbish up/sweep paths etc, or perhaps we could stamp their foreheads with  "scrounger" then we would be able to keep an eye on them,

     

LOL Machel.

I was listening to a local radio station phone in yesterday and they were talking about recycling of all things and how many people get really cheesed off at having to spend so much time and effort into sorting all their rubbish to be recycled. Some councils have up to 9 different bins and boxes per house.

Anyway this one caller rung up and said that the unemployed should be made to earn their job seekers allowance by sorting through people's rubbish and doing it for them.,
The presenter wasn't sure whether he was serious or not but he was completely.

There are some truly vile people out there..

during the 80's i was told not to do voluntary work as i would be unable to look for paid employment and therefore not fulfilling the condittions of my eligibility for benefits, now they want you to do voluntary work!  my sil was made redundant after christmas, he lives in rural lincs in a village with no amenities (not even a bus!) and the nearest is 5 miles away,  he has difficulty attending the local job centre ( he can't afford to run his car now) and turned up 10 minutes early for his appointment - He was told off  for being early !!!!  but the question is where would he do voluntary work?

My 24 year old did voluntary work at the hospital...but no more than 16 hours a week cos she was supposed to be looking for a job.

I was so proud of her... she would dress as if she was going to the office every day and did everything and anything. It ended well for her because she ended up getting a job as the PA to the assistant director of HR . She was one of the lucky ones...

I hate the way that people who condemn the unemployed blame them - if you are made redundant you have to live. I think that this whole"unemployed scrounger" business is so wrong and so unfair.

i dont think anyone has an issue with  benefits being paid to  people  who are out of work, issy,   it's  what the welfare state was created for,  i think what people are objecting to , and i'm one of them, is that we  now have generations of people choosing   welfare as a  lifestyle choice.

Sorry Jackson - I should have made myself clearer. The contributors to my local newspaper really do seem to tar all unemployed with the same brush..

Pepsi I agree with your post especially the first line I have noticed the Thatcherites from her government seems to be coming out of the woodwork on my telly a lot lately puting their two penneth in ... shudders, the minority of benefit scroungers should be dealt with first,  it beggars belief they are targeting the sick and disabled,by the time this lot have finished there will be more people out of jobs than in them, due to their harsh cuts there will be many more redundancies there are not enough jobs to go around, how can they say we want people off the dole/sick,if you are the ordinary working man .. sick and disabled.. a pensioner.. dont expect any help from the tories it aint going to happen it never does when they are in power,as far as calling people benefit scroungers I have heard people basically tag everyone out of work the same name,I just think oh right so if you are made redundant does that make you one as well, they should learn to choose their words very carefully before name calling it could be their turn next.

I agree.   People who are in work who make a choice to increase their family do not automatically receive an increase in salary to cater for an additional child.  Benefit claimants do.

SOMETIMES when people mention unemployed and having children my blood boils,  my oh worked for the same company for 12 years and was made redundant 1 month before our planned baby was due,  it was low paid work and redunancy pay was limited,  our second and third children were born when both of us were working however at the end of the third pregnancy i developed epileptic seizures - so what should i do? too late for termination and adoption? this child was planned and much loved - but what will some say "look at them - three children and claiming benefits" "scroungers"  now my son and dil both work as does my daughter (her oh is actively seeking work) as we have a "work ethic" are we not better than the tax evaders and "scrounger" pms and bankers? i think we are, so please choose your words carefully as they can hurt

yes you are better than the  'scroungers' machel, the welfare system was designed for  families likes yours,i for one hope you make full use of it.

my objection is to those people who choose a life on benefits   and we know they exist,  i remember a family on wife swap  who were bringing in some 33k a year in benefits and they kept having  chidlren, because if they spaced out the  fruit of their loins at regular intervals, they  would never need to work again...(forget how many they had now), the way they were living was a choice not some thing forced on them by circumstance.