Morning Line: Why shouldn't benefits be cut?

I dont beileve that there are millions of hardworking families who choose to work would be better off on benefits.

We should offer benefit assistance to them that really need it with families on low incomes to help them over a difficult period.

The problem is when other people claim benefit who are undeserving of that protection.

Re education and criminal charges should be introduced on undeserving cases, but continue to help the truly needy families.

For the record I have never claimed any benefit from the state like millions of others in the UK just get on with life.

this is particularly feeble damage control. working people can get housing benefit so your attempt to partition poor people into "deserving hard workers" and "scrounging benefit claimants" makes no sense - there is a large intersection, and people in the intersection are also worse off.

Try living solely on benefits and see what a difference 5% can make

I have heard several sensible suggestions lately that should be seriously considered - one being that child benefit should only be paid on the first two children any after that and you start to lose the benefit ie. 4 children no benefit This would stop people who can't afford them having them and it would also stop people making false claims. It would also mean an end to people who see a way out of working by just having large families in order to maximise the benefits.

We are now in a situation where there are 3 generations of some families who have never worked and can see no incentive to work because of the flawed benefit system.

Lorna Bourke trots out the usual examples from the small minority of cases where large rents are being funded, which reflct a lack of cheaper social housing rather than people choosing to be expensive; the number of these cases in any case would not make a big difference to the total HB budget.

The real concern about these changes is the likely rise in rent arrears, which means losses for landlords that actually get rent through HB and the increased evictions and court costs,which come on the back to the taxpayer

The fact is that if you need benefits and you are justified in receiving them then the state should ensure that you are at least receiving enough for a decent standard of life for you and any dependents. The problem comes with those who abuse the system and claim more (and in some cases much more) than their fair share. The government needs to focus on reducing the amount of benefit fraud rather than reducing legitimate payments but in the current "period of austerity" they simply cannot afford to invest the money that is required in fraud detection services so cuts are the easiest way of reducing the costs of the welfare state.

My feelings are that if we had the money as a nation then I'd happily say keep benefits as they are..... but we don't, we are borrowing it.

I'm with the ending of child poverty brigade, but we need to understand there's no free lunch, we are mortgaging our children future earnings to pay for today's benefits.

I not sure my 2yr old daughter will thank the Government for providing her with £1 in child benefit, but at a cost of £5 to repay it over the rest of her life....

I had a tenant who was claiming HB when I reported to the council that he had a house in Poland that he was renting out, they had no interest !!!!!

GENUINE benefit seekers who are there though no fault of their own MUST be supported. HOWEVER, (recent) examples like the family of former asylum-seekers who live in a £2.1million luxury townhouse at a cost to taxpayers of £8,000 a month. They didn't like the 'poorer' part of the city they were living in!!! An unemployed bus conductor, dependent on state benefits. Fair enough (I suppose) but when I found myself unable to live where I liked, I moved towns. Same with the schools "I wanted". Just made the best I could of it. Same when I couldn't get on the market with a "big enough house". I was just stupid, wasn't I? When, unbelievably, "rules" allow anyone who is eligible for housing benefit to claim for a private property in any part of the country they wish. I'd like Sandbanks, Poole, please Sir.

How idiotic are we getting here. Mind you, the idiots ALLOWING this (I mean in the Council, rather than ourselves) should be taken to one side... AND LEFT THERE. With any luck, of course, they'll be first out the door when Local Govt swings its axe.

I agree with the tone of the article.

The idea of child poverty in this country today is largely farcical anyway.

I grew up in a very poor area and whenever I went round friends houses who lived in council accomodation and whose families were on benefits, whilst small houses, they were always nicely decorated with living rooms choc full of electrical gear and the obligatory full Sky TV package. Yes dinner usually consisted of chips and beans or potato waffles, but that is hardly poverty. I still have old school friends now who are raising families with no-one in the household working and they still find money for mountain bikes, Xboxes, guitars etc!

My grandfather was one of fifteen children. His father and a number of brothers were wiped out just after he was born by pneumonia and flu leaving his mum a widow and to bring up an enormous family by herself. They lived in a tiny two bedroom house in Ashbourne and even with many of them working from a young age they struggled just to afford to live. Now THAT is poverty.

Thankfully times have moved on, but when we speak of poverty today I think the real sense of the word has been forgotten.

There is a whole sub culture of people in this country that think the country owes them a living having contributed nothing. It is long overdue that radical action be taken to overhaul the benefits system.

The very fact that Lorna (who presumably is not poor or on benefits) needs to trot out all this hoary stuff is because the government is losing the PR battle on this.

As a financial journalist, I know the value of the free lunches, trips to the theatre/sports events/weekends and even weeks away have been worth a fortune - far more than most weekly benefits.

Perhaps Citywire writers should disclose their perks!!!

pay benefits equally to every body or pay benefits to nobody at all. Should provoke some interesting changes.

Though even at no benefit, would we find that the burden of debt passed to the economy by the banks is still overwhelming?

In which case the solution is not in reducing any benefits but instead charge the culprit banks with returning the lost funds to the economy from foreign earnings.

Well done Lorna for tackling a sensitive subject.

Who can disagree with the point you make that housing a family in central London for £7,500 per week is a good use of taxpayers money. The government have made it clear that the years of benefit fraud and abuses of the system are over.

My other half and I live in a flat and both work hard 9-5 jobs, frequently doing overtime. We just about have enough to pay the mortgage/bills and to buy food. We wouldn't dream of starting a family in the state we are in, though we've both expressed wishes to, as we wouldn't ever want to be dependent on the state to live.

Living below us is a couple just a bit older than us (30ish) with two kids. Neither of them work and live entirely on benefits - she's a stay at home mum and he's got a problem with his leg, therefore on disability allowances. There's nothing which should stop him working in an office or somewhere not requiring physical labour however. And their children are now old enough to go to school so there is nothing stopping the mum from getting a part time job. It makes me sick to think my tax is affording them a decent lifestyle - they live in a nice flat, have a nice car, and seem to go on holiday frequently. What is going on with this country?!

Benefits are a taxpayer burden that our country is finding more and more difficult to support. They take a massive cut of the country's revenue, something like 100 billion a year. That's about three times more than the defence budget of about 35 billion a year.......the way our country has accumulated debt (thanks Gordon) it won't be long before benefits are a past luxury that we cannot afford.....I look forward to that day!

To Neil Murphy - get of your backside and get a job.

I am happy to reveal my perks - none. I now live in deepest Dorset and rarely come to London where all the freebies take place. I doubt that I have had two business lunches paid for in the past year and I can't remember the last time I was entertained at the theatre or sports event let alone expensive trips to sports events. I am self-employed and pay all my own expenses out of earnings.

I think the gov should overhaul the housing rules. Making it mandatory for councils to house large families in large houses so that they can each get their own bedrooms is a piss take. I had to share a bedroom with my brother for a long time, so why should a asylum seeking family of 7 get a 7 bedroom house? This sort of logic is what makes some people have larger families.

In general this isn't the best time to cut winter heating allowances or benefits. The last thing you want to read in winter is that another elderly couple have dies because they could not afford to keep warm.

Hang on a minute, years ago we never had benifits, so why of a sudden pepole are up in arms, is it that they expect that they should get this automatically?

I work for a bank, and lets just say I have single mothers? (some do not desrve to be called this) Expalining to me that they cannot pay there loans this month as they dont earn enough. Earning being called benifits. Yes they call being at home all day screwing and bleeding taxpayers dry earning there handouts.

If this government have got the balls, it should stop all hand outs and let people find there own way in life and get a job,fend for themselves. perhaps this way it will stop so many single parent families.

What a nanny state we live in.

The thing that bothers me is the concept of "Relative Poverty" trotted out all the time by metropolitan bien pensants. The inability to have a flat screen telly, sufficient money for fags and beer, and fancy bikes for the kids seems like poverty to them. Those advocating supplying our people with means to have such things should go to see real poverty in the back alleys of Delhi or the barrios outside Mexico city. Our "poor" would seem like millionaires to them.

A lot of the people that these proposals would affect are pensioners such as myself. I think I have already given enough by being forced to accept pathetic rates of interest on my savings. I am effectively sibsidising people with mortgages who should be paying a lot more for the housing that they enjoy living in. I hope they feel grateful that pensioners like me are subsidising their grand homes.

What business does the state have in providing and/or paying for housing? It is totally crazy.

Harry is right.

Almost all benefits are income and circumstance related. They are NOT paid because you are unemployed, further, if you have 'chosen' to be unemployed you would be ineligable for all unemployment related payments as you have to be willing to accept work when it is offfered. Any employed person or family on low income will get help if they ask for it. Any person who imagines such help provides a life of ease can not have a clue about the money such people get.

On this site there was a silly thing about a chap who claimed an unemployed family was £7000 p.a. better off than him and could afford holidays abroad etc. This is a typical example of how normal working people are being made to feel resentful.

I would love to see the figures for this.

1. He would not have been getting unemployment benifit if he was long term unemployed, he would have been getting Social Security.

2. 8 children would get him aprox £114 per week TOTAL child benefit. He and his 'companions' combined alowance would have been aprox £125 per week max. This would give them about £12,000 p.a. plus rent and local tax paid. I do not know about others reading this but I could not live on less than £25 per person per week in my family.

If you go to the Social Security site you can check the figures by using their calculator with a fantasy family.

In case you were wondering, I am semi retired, live on my estate in France in a 15th cent Manoir and do not get any benefits. I have worked for everything I have and find the idea of resenting people who have not been as lucky as me pathetic.

David.

My understanding used to be that benefits were to prevent people from abject poverty and whilst i recognise there are children living below the poverty line in Britain it does appear that many people on benefits can afford a rather good lifestyle, you see it time and time again. We have a few council owned properties on our street, one family drive an executive car and have a sports car, miele dishwasher and washing machine arrived the other day, satellite (which appears to be an essential item for many benefit claimants) two children, designer outfits..... they pay less than £6 a week for their home, how??? There is a need for a massive overhaul of the system. As for families requiring £2million homes at a cost of £7k a week? Those private landlords have been laughing at the tax payer with their GUARANTEED income! Personally I think the cap is a good move, £400 a week is a sufficient amount for decent housing in most of the country! Private landlords who have taken total advantage of this appalling system deserve to have this income stopped!

Well said Lorna, well done the coalition!

If I don't put any money into my savings account I won't be able to draw any money out of it. Nor will I be able to (legally) fund my desired lifestyle out of somebody else's savings account. So why the heck are we allowing people who have never contributed a bean to the system, to draw an income out of it? Yet, the Government seems quite willing to penalise those who have contributed for 50 years through other means - ie pensioners. So, get tough on pensions but not abusers of our welfare system.

Message is - No contribution = no payment. I wonder how much the NHS would save with that same philosophy?

The benefits should be transparent. Each person on benefits should be entitled to the same amount. Then we would be able to have a reasoned opinion on whether ot not they are scrounging. It occurs to me that anyone bright enough to milk the benefit system is certainly shrewd enough to be an asset to any company.

Is it in the government's interest to allow this festering resentment by working people of people on benefits ? The governments certaimly do nothing to calm emotions.

How many of us know undeserving recipients of benefits?

Motability is the biggest scam of all. I know one guy whose disability is that he is obese because he sits on his proverbial all day watching television eating and drinking. He has an alleged 'heart condition'. The condition is that it never beats more than 70 per minute because he is idle.

He has a new car every two years thanks to Motability. He was discussing with his two brothers and his brother in law the other day the new cars that they were going to get because, you guessed it, they also have mysterious heat conditions and are unemployable.

The country needs to distinguish between a safety net and feather bed.

Let us not forget that benefits received by the poor is money that is NOT THEIRS. When taxes on the wealthy is increased, you are taking away money that they have earned themselves. I have made what I have from nothing. Why can't everyone else?

The government should not be a charity.

I say cut benefits altogether. I have no interest in giving money to the people that are not as smart or poor. In fact a little money could well do them a lot of damage.

:o)

Why don't we just say that if somebody has not worked for 4 years they get an assesment, if this assesment stipulates that idleness has been the cause of this long period of inertia, simply shoot the receipiant in the back of the head and drain them of blood and organs? This will cure housing shortages, transplant shortages and encourage people to work, after all, fear gives men wings. I appreciate its extreamly right wing, but it is only discremination against those assesed as 'lazy' who we are carrying on a journey through which cannot support them.

Sorry that was only a joke...

Slaves gainfully employed v slaves not gainfully employed.

Slaves gainfully employed but at a rate below which they can live so get state subsidy for housing.

Disabled slaves - some of both types of slave.

Unemployed slaves. Slaves that could be gainfully employed but are not 2.5million.

Gainfully employed slaves you will pay for slaves not gainfully employed. Divide and rule.

Slave masters get mega$ slaves get $0 after paying all the bills from the slave masters.

Slap a one off tax on all the global multinational slave masters and pay down the debt they want to enslave the slaves with.

I couldn't believe that up to £2,000 per week could be claimed for rent through housing benefit. This is about as much as the average person earns in a month and annually is more than 99% of the population earn, and this is just the housing benefit! There is something wrong with that and personally I want and am happy to see it stopped asap.

@ David W.S.S

Following your post I created a fantasy family with 6 children and the benefit calculator came up with a staggering £484.75 per week!!! Thus :-

Income Support £102.75 per week

Child Tax Credit £275.52 per week

Council Tax Benefit £19.18 per week

Child Benefit £87.30 per week

That's equivalent to £25.2k per annum take home pay without the stress of having 2 hours a day commute, 8 hours of work, a bully for a boss and everything else work related.

I now know where I went wrong but it's too late as my breeding days are over!!

I agree with a number of respondents about child benefit. In the vast majority of instances children are planned and therefore understanding the financial requirements within that decision making process should be paramount and not be expected as a " given " that someone else will need to pick up the child- rearing tab.

People on benefits (long term) need to look at what they are getting for nothing. House, food, heating, ect... Now if you claim you cannot live on the current handouts, yet have sky TV, large flat screens, mobile phones, cars, pets.... Get rid of them all, as these privileges are fruits of earning, not laying on your backs scratching your arses. Benefit assessors should look at these facts, make them loose them, or loose payouts. Working in a supermarket whilst at uni it was surprising how many people buy cheap ready meals for themselves, but buy branded dog food for their dogs for example.

The solution is simple cut the benefits, and help people on low incomes over come poverty (as these people are working, and trying to earn a living). And there is a large number of people who are on low incomes who work which I would rather see my tax money go to.

I agree there are some genuine people who cant work for what ever reasons..

But most of them are lazy who cant be asked to work minimum wages and pay taxes.

Instead they get lesser paid cash at hand jobs and buy fancy gadgets and go on holidays.. (like the council paid vacation to a sex club in amsterdam! )

I have seen people on benefits live some fancy lifestyles and no one would guess they are on benefits..

I have a scenario for people to think and put their comments on..

Two guys work at the same company same job, same salary..

Guy A, parties every weekend, expensive holidays etc etc and saves nothing..

Guy B on the other hand lives a modest life style, saves as much as he can and spends wisely..

Both are made redundant.. Guy A gets benefits, B doesnt as he has managed to save some money over a period of time!

Effectively.. Guy B is being punished for living a modest lifestyle and saving like a sensible person.. That is our benefits system!

David W.S.S-Can I come live on your estate for free then?

The benefit system is a joke, I'm working hard to pay for my upstairs neighbours (Couple with toddler and one on the way in there 20s neither of whom are working, and are very able) to flood my flat - to then find out she was claiming single person benefit from her housing officer when I reported them. Will they pay any of that extra claimed back....they won't be asked to and certainly would not offer to.....do I have to pay for the repairs...hell yes...

Taking an objective view from both sides of the fence I can understand why both providers and recipients of benefits want to argue their corner.

The benefit process amounts to money being taken from one sector (mainly the tax payers) and distributed to another sector (the unemployed, pensioners, disabled and those on low income)

If we remove the genuine disabled and pensioners we are generally left with a body of people who receive an income from the efforts of others.

Surely it would be better to gaurantee these recipients a work placement rather than pay free benefits.

This could be achieved by asking the private sector to take on board the unemployed and to contribute a small percentage of the benefit. The unemployed would have to take on any position offered (irrespective of qualifications). If they refuse all benefits would cease.

I know many will say that there are no jobs, but most companies would take on additional staff if they were only paying a small subsidy toward income. My company could easilly employ thirty / forty additional workers if only helping to keep the workplace tidy and assisting with the general production.

This would be a win, win, win, situation, The government would reduce the amount paid in benefits, the employers would become more competitive and more importantly the unemployed would be contributing to the society we live in.

It must be better to provide a system of contributing rather than a system of taking.

Anyone who defends the long term unemployed should simply look at the influx of eastern european migrants. We simply could not have attracted the millions of skilled and educated economic immigrants that we have, if there wasn't any jobs being generated in this country.

Ignoring the recent mess there has been two types of long term unemployed in this country; the lazy second/third generation layabouts (who know they are milking the system) and those who think the govenrment owes them a job and won't budge till they are given one as good as the last one.

Whenever a company/industry fails in this country their is a media outcry blaming the government and asking what the state is going to do for these poor people losing their jobs.

It doesn't matter how poorly run or uneconomic the business was it is always governemnts fault and the government MUST do something. This has led to a culture of entitlement.

The unemployed from these industries then sign on the dole and sit on the backsides watching Jeremy Kyle and wait for a new job of equal standing to appear from nowhere. The government obviously can't conjure up jobs or organise a p'ss up in a brewery they simply start blowing cash turning the old steel mill/mine/factory into a new 'enterprise zone/retail park/millenium dome/olympic park'.

In the meantime an employer 50 miles away can't get find any new staff so he has to hire a load of poles.

Its a joke.

I have sat on both sides of the fence i.e worked and paid my taxes etc for 25 years and am now forced to give continuous care for my wife who has progressive Multiple Sclerosis and now have to claim benefits to survive. Whilst I have every sympathy for the hardworking majority of this country who struggle to make ends meet and face their own difficult dilemas, I also find it disturbing and repugnant that some people who are in a position to pay their own way should consider those genuine cases that cant, be undeserving leeches of the system. Do not confuse the excessive hand outs of housing benefits with the struggle and burden of illness and the hoops that genuine disabled have to go through to gain limited finances to survive, it is no walk in the park. To avoid the wrong people getting disability benefit wouldnt it be a better system for Occupational therapists/GP,s to report on the claimants true medical situation rather than relying on the claimant persuading government offices assessors that they are a deserving case.

You will be interested to know Lorna that the self employed are the most likely people to be diddling their taxes. Another way of taking the honest part of the population for a ride. In fact when you look at the tax losses, conservatively estimated at £40 billion a year then the welfare benefits scams pale into insignificance (around £1.6 billion). I am for tackling both problems but would put most effort into the biggest problem.

Lucky Me.

Yes I looked up the calculation after David W S S's comments. But you have not included any housing benefit, which can easily be £10K giving a total of £35K.

Anyone working would need to earn about £48k per annum to get this after tax and NI. Bloody crazy!!

If you want to take people off benefit, take the benefit off the people!!

Very emotive subject, look at the number of comments.

Well done Lorna for being up front putting us straight regarding your expenses.

Nobody likes to think of people living below the poverty line if they are unable to work or help themselves, but when it comes to people who "cheat" the system it's a different matter.

There are genuine people in need, my brother had a stroke 4 years ago, before that he was a hard (ish) working man who paid his taxes. Now he claims Disability Allowance, correctly so, as he is unable to speak and doesn't have the use of his right side and couldn't manage on his own without it (he is not married or have a partner to help him).

There are also peolpe who milk the system for all they can get, these are the people that cause so much grievance, the problem is recognising them. I say to Anon 3, shop the guy, tell the authorities what he's up to, how can the gov't know who's cheating and who's not if they are not informed.

I know how difficult it is to put your hand up and inform on somebody, but unless we as a society "do the right thing", we'll still be here complaining about it for years to come.

I know plenty of middle class people accepting benefits from the State without a second thought. They get tax relief on pension contributions costing the country around £10 billion a year (some of these people are already millionaires!). These very same people are claiming Child Benefit as well for God's sake. They then take their snotty nosed kids down the Sure Start centres mainly meant for low income families. It doesn't stop there when they retire on their massive pensions they claim for free travel cards and are quite happy to accept their winter fuel allowance. We really must do something about these underserving spongers off the State.

One of the problems is that only the very rich and those on benefits can easily afford children in the first place. Those who chose to work and are not well paid are those that suffer the most as children are very expensive.

Surely there should be a restriction on those on benefits being allowed to breed too much. It only creates a worse problem downstream.

Anon 8, tax relief is a reclaim of tax they have already paid (and this is capped for people with earnings over £130,000 at £20,000) capped to 100% of relevant earnings for everything else, what is wrong with them getting THIER tax back if it is to provide an income for which they will pay tax at their rate in retirement????? These people you are referring to are still contributing infinitely more to the economy through tax and national insurance than the terminally unemployed whom are being propped up by these people, by deferring tax until retirement they are guaranteeing a stream of it into the economy (providing its been taken out through private scheme) until the end of their days, what on earth is wrong with that? They also pay dividend tax on the pension investments at 10%; it is more economically viable in the long run for somebody to have a steady pension in retirement (thus reducing their benefit entitlement) so why on earth would they not be incentivized through some tax relief??

Because it is costing us a fortune and like the welfare benefits we can no longer afford it ? Why should Fred Goodwin and others like him have received tax relief on his pension contributions? Didn't he have enough money already? And my goodness me they can only get £20,000 tax relief a year, that's nearly £400 a week, just for their pension! Thanks for spotting the other perk of only 10% tax on pension investments. Why when I pay at least 20 per cent on earned income!

GOOD ON YOU LORNA, AFTER THE MESS THE LAST GOVERNMENT LEFT US WITH WHERE DO PEOPLE THINK THE MONEY IS COMING FROM. GET WISE EVERYONE .THE CUPBOARD IS BARE. I REPEAT THE CUPBOARD IS BARE. FROM THE BENEFIT RECEIVERS TO THE BETTER OFF ALL WILL HAVE TO TAKE A CUT IN THEIR INCOME FOR THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE, THE GOVERNMENT JUST CANT BORROW ANY MORE MONEY.

It's a mistake to assume that hard working people are not already in receipt of housing benefit already. Indeed, any cuts to housing benefit are likely to impact on working families as much as those not in work.

In Torbay where I live, an increasing number of low paid working people living in private rented accommodation are now in receipt of some kind of top up in housing benefit and council tax discount from the LA because they're not paid a living wage like their parents' generation were. Many of them work for Top 100 UK listed companies too, by the way. Something the writers of this article seem to be unaware of.

So if you want to hit some of the hardest working people in low paid jobs even further, keep up the rhetoric about cutting benefits to the poor. I predict a riot as the song goes...

David W.S.S.

you have forgotten Child Tax Credit, so the family you describe would be claiming the following weekly amounts

Income Based Jobseekers Allowance couple rate £102.75

Child Benefit for 8 children (7 x £13.40 plus £20.30) £114.10

Child Tax Credit for 8 children £363.86

Rent and Council Tax paid

Total £580.71 a week

This would be higher if anyone in the family is disabled.

To quote Jesus, the poor will always be be with us. Or at least they always will be while child poverty is measured in relative terms. At the moment a child is deemed to be in poverty if his/her family income is a percentage (I believe its 60% but could be wrong) of average family income.

If the average family income doubled overnight, those children living in families earning only 60% of that figure would be deemed poor. The average figure doubled again, there would still be 'poor' children by the governments measure.

The surest way for any government to eradicate child poverty is to abolish this absurd measure and define poverty in absolute not relative terms.

When I started reading the article I was expecting the ensuing comments to be packed with reckless intemperance and shrill indignation against its heretical, nay, blasphemous thesis.

I am pleasantly surprised. I do think the message has finally got through to the majority of the population that the game really is up: our welfare culture -one of the most profligate in Europe - is unsustainable at its present level, at least for the time being.

I sense political mischief behind the IFS's report, which it knew full well would be seized on instantly by the media in their crazed efforts to find cracks in the coalition and lever them as wide as possible. And normally that would strike a mighty chord in a large section of the public. But this time seems to be different.

Even before the credit crunch and the banking crisis, the country (or more precisely the state) had been living beyond its means for years, a state of affairs condoned and wilfully dissembled by a complacent and deceitful government. I think, in spite of the best efforts of elements of the media, most people respect the determination of the coalition to bite the bullet and deal effectively with the crisis in the national finances, a challenge which its predecessor simply did not have the guts to face.

" Many working families are far worse off than those living off benefits – but still choose to work."

Where is your evidence for this Lorna? Let's see the figures please. What does "far worse off" actually mean? How do you know this?

"But what about the millions of hardworking families who choose to work but would, in fact, be better off living on benefit? "

Millions of families would be better off on benefits? Really? Are you sure about that?

Trotting out Daily Mail headlines doesn't actually constitute reporting the facts.

XXXXX, £1.6 billion, in your dreams.

A scam includes those able to work but not prepared to shift their posteriors to find it, or get up in time to work, but allow the jobs to be done by those from abroad. Those from abroad have to work as locally they do not get benefits for being idle.

Better we keep the money here and pay those that will work, if only to make up to basic social security level, and if not prepared to wrk, then zilsch, zero, de nada, nothing, f*** a** - 50%.

Then there was the ex wife of a solicitor, 8 children in private accommodation, rent on exclusive property got by the council £10s of thousands, far, far better off than when she was married, income, excluding rent, about £35k benefits, and she was not English, even UK!!. Now those are the real scams.

Now if foreign, I suggest unless citizens, they return rather than relying on us for a living, supplying support. They contributed nothing, ergo should get nothing.

As for illegals HR, they are breaching our HR, being forcibly robbed to pay for them! Ship them out to stop them breaching our HR.

I am 86 years old.

I live in a retirement bungalow( one bedroom).

I have always saved.

As little cash as possible should be paid in benefits.

Food vouchers would be a good start(no booze no fags).

The answer is simple Miss Burke. Because your salary has not been cut and it is higher than theirs, unfortunately.

@ Thorpe, i agree, no benefits in cash terms, a voucher system really would provide, food, electricity, heating, clothing... not satellite dishes, plasmas, designer clothes, benefit should be for essentials, if people want more then they work for it, simple! Sick to the teeth of benefit cheats and the handouts for all and sundry!

xxxx - I do not think that you understand the financial/tax aspects of pension contributions. Your comment is a red herring.

Employer contributions are made free of tax and NI - including all taxpayer contributions to public service pensions. Fred Goodwin's pension had no tax relief - it was simply a business expense. The issue is not a tax issue, but a case of a incestuous remuneration committee and a Public shareholder who took his eye off the ball.

It is far better for the economy - and you - if earners defer some of their income to later years, and pay the tax on it then, rather than squander their money on luxuries, and then live on the State. And such honest and careful persons are currently being fleeced by low interest rates so that the irresponsible can manage debts they racked up whilst spending other people's money.

Could not agree more with you Jon,

Also XXXX, 10% is the basic rate of tax on dividends 32.5% is the higher rate. if you have shares then this is what you pay on the income. 20% 40% & 50% are those paid on income depending on tax band and yes these can be reclaimed on pensions but that is because they are paying steady tax in the later years which is of huge benefit to country. We cannot afford not to make private pensions at least in someway attractive (and BTW they are not nearly attractive enough) or else out ageing population will bankrupt this country. Fred Goodwin is not your typical pension planner, he was an exec with a pension funded by RBS business expenses, he is not Mr Harry Prudent saving 10% from his wage everymonth to make sure him and his wife can live to standard of 60% working life income so that your kids aren't paying for them!

I'd just like to see ANY government tackle the excesses of the rich and super-rich. Let's have a real assualt on bonuses, tax avoidance, tax-evasion, etc. And let's not be afraid to have a decent progressive tax system. Let's get biting!

Those in receipt of benefits are always an easy target, but in relative terms the clawback would be small compared with closing the tax avoidance loop holes

A friend of mine works in the local council managing accomodation in Chelsea and Hammersmith, she says if, say, an asylum seeker comes up and asks for accomodation in Chelsea for him/herself and their 9 children, all the applicant will have to do is say that they have a cousin living in the area and that's enough of a connection, and the council is OBLIGED to house them, no matter the cost. This is ridiculous. I completely agree that if people are living on housing benefit they should be housed where is cheaper, unless there is a very good reason not to do so (say, family has lived in the area for generations, benefit reliance likely to be temporary, etc). And child benefit should be cut where people keep having children they can't afford (not prejudicing already existing children, but removing the incentive to have more for those who haven't had the multitude of kids yet). Two children is enough for ANYONE, and children born in porverty have enough of a disadvantage not having to compete for parental attention and resources with their four or five siblings.

I think Ms Bourke’s article did a lot of good in getting Citywire’s readers to open themselves on this issue.

Most comments were worth reading and perhaps could be divided into two main groups: technical and common sense.

Relatively recently, a US senator accused BP of cheating the public for reclaiming tax portion of repairs bill relating to oil spillage in the Gulf of Mexico. This was followed by a similar call by a labour notable MP in a different case here in the UK.. It is a tax issue just as tax reclaimed on pensions is. Thanks to tax expert bloggers for clarifying the situation.

The other kind was full of common sense and creative thinking. I hope someone is listening and take note.

Yes the bad law needs to be re-visited to remove justification for exaggerated claims, but of course those in need must always be supported even for economic reasons if for nothing else. I felt none of bloggers objected to that.

David Wss - you have obviously been in France too long and the term Social Security has not been used for decades and the working population have seen their taxes grow to about 50 - 55% of their gross income under the previous government taking all stealth taxes in account. Nina - if you want figures then look at Clare's example just a few comments up from your own and did you never see the episode of Wife Swap where one family on benefits were thousands a year better off than the professional working couple they swapped with. If you take Claire's total and add the value of council tax and housing benefit we are talking close to if not more than £900 per week. How many of us with mortgages and families can earn that much a week after tax and NI deductions Nina. Those who choose not to look for work and cannot provide proof of such should be given food vouchers only and that includes single mothers in most circumstances. This country is now bankrupt and yet the immigrants keep a coming = more housing and more benefits, more cars on the road, more hospitals, more schools etc etc. Let us hope that the new government has a bit more backbone than the previous one otherwise I can see a tax revolt coming.

Jon - you are using an example of a family with eight children. Hardly representative. Also don't think Wife Swap counts as empirical evidence, either.

I still want to know where Lorna's "millions" of families who would be better off on benefits are.

Nina - you would be surprised how many people out there make a good living out of having children and can only assume you have led a sheltered life. I can honestly assure you that by the time i have paid my tax and national insurance, mortgage, council tax and travel costs to work i am actually left with less per month than my own sister and her partner who have both chosen not to work for the past 20 years, get their rent and council tax paid, no travel to work and no tax or NI to pay and we both have several children. I am on an average salary by the way. The ones who would be better off on benefits are typically the ones on minimum wage with children and this is not that hard to work out. I myself if i were in rented accommodation rather than a mortgage would be better off on benefits as long as the children were below school leaving age. In London or the south east the cost of accommodation is horrendous and in some cases is very equal to ones monthly salary, esp minimum wage, but not if you are on benefits - it all gets paid for you and these are the other group who are better off on benefits. Do some research Nina, I am sure you will find this out as most of it is common sense to work out.

Tut, tut, tut... having just read some of your absurd, divisive bile, I'm beginning to understand the meaning of the phrase 'hell is other people' - and indeed why it was deemed necessary to inflict New Labour's insufferably surreal witch project upon us.

Wake up people, the workforce has been in steady decline for decades now and you would all know that if you'd spent a little time reading your history books instead of turning yourselves into loathsome, occupational philistines all this time. Personally, I think a spell on the dole should be mandatory for everyone now. It seems to be the only way of putting an end to this kind of conceited ignorance. Has it not occurred to any of you that you should be grateful to the unemployed; if they were'nt claiming benefits or co-operating with policies that stigmatise and disable them they'd most likely be applying for your jobs at a fraction of the cost.

At least the Victorians had the excuse that they lived in less enlightened times. Obviously all the lessons of two horrendous world wars have been learned - OR not.

I can't make up my mind whether it's lunacy or idiocy that drives this kind of demented drivel. Although political cowardliness from MPs is largely to blame for everything, of course.

What on earth do you think Churchill meant when he famously said to Roosevelt - "give us the tools to finish the job?" Or will we have to get the satirists at the Daily Mail to spell it out for you? Yawn.

I was sitting in the doctor's surgery today when Classic FM cheerfully announced that the pound had finished up against the dollar and proceeded to play another stirring symphony by Elgar to send everyone home happy and secure in their delusions. But for how much longer, huh?

Perhaps we should just drown the poor like unwanted kittens. Oh, and the unemployed - especially bankers. Ah, yes, there are us baby-boomers too, because we have stolen you lot's money. Anybody else ? Let's check The Mail or The Express for unwelcome folk.