Osborne admits further welfare spending cuts are likely

Chuka Umunna - have you every received JSA? What a pointless question and highlights Labours "something for nothing" period in Government. I don't think Osbourne is going far enough. If you are irresponsible enough to have 7 children you can't feed off your own back, you should not expect the taxpayer to look after you. Work hard, pay rent and stop being a sponge. Time to get tough.

I agree with Anonymous 1. Too many people have come to think that the state owes them a living and squeal like stuck pigs when they are told they should be out at work and forget that they live from the effort of those of us who do work.

We should adopt the polict of the USA where the state pays benefits for no more than two years. This weeds out scroungers who are obliged to do work of some sort even if it is not to their liking.

More than a million people from Eastern Europe have come to the UK and have found work meaning that it can be done with effort. I suppose Chuka Umunna thinks that asking a person to work is in some way unfair.

Possibly the best career option for people leaving school without any qualifications is have is to have 5 or more kids and live of the state.

Agreed Jonathan, preferably from 5 different fathers, non of which work.

Housing benefit is not a stand alone topic within the welfare system. There is a string of other benefits that follow on: no Council Tax, no property maintenance costs, property improvement grants, multi-child benefits, free prescriptions et al; as well as JSA.

This can leave disposable welfare income on a par with the disposable income of those working hard to make it by their own efforts (after allowing for high fixed costs of property and tax).

Should care be needed, this is also provided to benefits qualifiers (worth up to 850 pounds per week in care homes, although often contracted for less by Councils, leaving private payers to subsidise true cost or make up care home profits). Private payers are expected to sell homes and investments to pay for care, removing incentives to save for a better old age.

Besides saving on welfare, there is therefore need also to re-balance present inequalities, between those trying hard to get ahead and those sometimes not; perhaps by part charging Council Tax to those on housing benefit while discounting Council Tax to those who maintain themselves through work at a modest standard above welfare qualification.

As some of the bizarre expenditure under Labour comes to light it is clear that we must get real. The country can no longer afford to pay £2000 a week for a £2m house in Kensington to house a jobless overseas immigrant with 7 children. For too many youngsters having children and living off the state is their job. The children then go off the rails and we pick up the bill again. In other EU countries like Spain where the state does not just give housing and benefits out like smarties the number of single parents is less!!

Time to get tough as those who do work, pay their taxes will finally rebel if the burden continues. Remember the numbers of elderly who will require significant supporta nd care is set to rise massively in the next decade and many of these people have worked and paid their taxes so deserve a better old age.

I agree and I'm a single parent who has sometimes had to have housing benefit. I also work as much as I can. I had one child when i became single, but I was advised that if I had more children I would be able to claim more benefit, get a bigger flat and give up work. There are people who have children instead of a career and don't take very good care of them either. I think that's wrong.

I live in Cardiff I remember the local council advertising a job about 10 years ago when our city was flooded with Somalis the job description was to assist new arrivals on obtaining benefits and housing I was gob smacked they couldnt wait to hand out the money it is now biting us on the backside.

It is this kind of irresponsable handing out of benefits that has helped us get into this mess we really do have an inbred British culture of drinking taking recreational drugs and not working I hope this coalition can stop the rot although i do think it may be too late , teenage pregnancy is another issue council flat aged 17 free money its like Christmas everyday.

I am appalled at the tone of these comments. What about the children of these unfortunate people? It is not their fault that their parents cannot earn enough to support them. For that matter, even if the parents are judged to be irresponsible and useless it is still not the fault of the children. At least Gordon Brown's heart was in the right place in that he headed what must be one of the most generous governments ever as regards benefit payments to the less well off.

Family allowance, or whatever they call it nowadays should be resticted to the first 2 children only, as the country is more than over populated.

Family allowance, or whatever they call it nowadays should be resticted to the first 2 children only, as the country is more than over populated.

Hey George - I have some news. Slashing housing benefit from £100,000 to £28,000 - nowhere near enough. My son works really hard all year and earns £16,000 per year. Even the average wage in this country is only £24,000 p.a. How can it be sensible to give the people who refuse to work, more money for their housing benefits than a working family gets for all their expenses?

I think a few of you should try living off benefits for a while. It ain't easy. One day some of you may even find out. It is quite surprising what life can throw at you when you least expect it. One day you are doing Ok and the next you are poleaxed - illness, divorce, domestic violence, death of a partner, loss of your job etc. You then go from a comfortable life style to a sponger (in your words). It is really interesting how people's attitudes then change. Also to those with the most right wiing comments - let us know what you do to help your local community - I suspect you contribute little or nothing but probably spend quite a bit of time trying to diddle your taxes - salting away money in offshore bank accounts, not declaring agency work, hiding rents from lettings. The well to do can be just as much leeches as others.

A cap of £1000 per month for housing benefit alone is more than enough. We know a family who are on benefit and return home to Jamaica for three months over Christmas every year, they have never worked nor do they want to as they say they cannot afford to as they would miss their anual holiday.

Bob - This is a case of the sins of the parents being visited upon their children and this is a routine excuse for maintaining the whole rotten system whereby scroungers live off the state. The children grow up with the same mindset and produce their own children who live off the state and the cycle continues.

Gordon Brown's heart was not in the right place. He was financially reckless and wasted vast sums of money and plunged the UK into debt that future generations will have to repay. Perhaps you are a recipient of this largesse but will not be around to repay it?

Most of these comments make it sound as though claimants are getting rich on housing benefit rather than the rip of landlords who actually get the money.

Was really enjoying the obvious spoof nature of these comments - my favourite is Ian's - 'squealing like stuck pigs'. Then it struck me that perhaps some of contributors are serious - now that would be scary!

Amid all the talk about scroungers living off the state, is it worth mentioning that housing benefit is also paid to people working very hard in jobs where the pay is so low that they can't afford somewhere to live without help from the state?

When I heard Osbourne speaking, I thought he was saying 5000 get more than £400 a week housing benefits, not £100,000 a year?

As usual, there is the old trick of rubbishing something by judging it by extreme

examples eg with housing benefit, then saying of course its ok to reduce it or abolish it because its been abused, even if 99% of the cases are not unreasonable, Lorna Burke please note.

Why shouldn't benefit be cut? Because, at least in the case I know of someone on JSA, there is no slack to be cut. £7 per week would come out of food money,which already is spent frugally. Because she owns her own house, the benefit covers mortgage payments but only the origional mortgage from 35 years ago so there is a shortfall there. then there is the expense providing for her daughter at school. So, if she got a job,it would have to pay £200 p.w. otherwise she would lose the house. She is over 50 and companies prefer younger women. So there are no jobs to be had! Food prices continue to rise putting even more strain on her resources.She is taking a course in computers to improve her prospects which she only just got on before the government cut it, much to the annoyance of the job centre, who seem to think it is their job to give the job seekers as hard a time as possible.

That gives prehaps a different perspective on things.