Millhouse

Kix

So couple with children, neither work lose the most.

And the problem is?

britexpat76

Looks fair to me.

nonthaburi

bit unfair if you're a couple with children , one earner . What about if the children are too young for school ? Childcare might not be possible or too expensive .
And a couple with no children and no work lose less of a percentage than a couple with children and an earner . Why's that ? Surely there should be an incentive to work .

britexpat76

To be fair that is the one strange result, which does not look fair.

typical

Just me who finds that first graph horrifying then?

Kix

I can't understand how anyone can argue about this apart form the "couple with children, one earner" which I think is wrong.

Kix

If you think about it, the median group, 4,5,6,7 on the above, pay the most taxes anyway, so the amount that the lowest pay is negligible.

A 5% loss on a few hundred quid a week (most of which is benefits) is nothing, maybe a tenner. OK, stop smoking fags then!

mikelincs

Benefits are not taxed, so nothing to lose there, the rich can afford to lose the most, but the ones losing the least are the middle income groups, and where does the main tory support come from.. ermm the middle income groups, so let's hit them the least..

kittycat1

it would be interesting to see these charts against an equivalent chart showing the increases in costs of living, then you will start to see the real problems.

It's all well and good talking percentages, but when you really look at it, it is quite frightening how little some people have to live on. Kix a tenner may be inconsequential to you, but to a little old granny living on her own that may be the difference in putting her heating on or not or having a hot meal.

It's very easy to look at the likes of the Jeremy Kyle scumbags who are claiming everything and living a better life than those working and judge those to be representative of people claiming benefits, but there really are thousands of good people genuinely living on the breadline.

Kix

I agree with you, however shouldn't the "little old grannies" you mention be targeted to ensure they get the benefits they deserve.

And stop the scum that get a 10 bedroom (or whatever) house built for them?

I don't mind benefits, but I'm totally against people who wont work.

kittycat1

Kix I agree but how do you do that? How many people recieve benefits, theyget what maybe 10 minutes review once in a blue moon to discuss their position, it's an easy system to cheat.

I agree with you, personally I feel those out of work who can't find work but are capable should be involved in community service projects until they find work. Put something back into society rather than take take take. They might be more inclined to get a job for the minimum wage if they are having to work to earn their benefits. Send them out delivering meals to the elderly, or llitter picking or removing graffitti.

Look at retraining, Iwas reading the other day that there is a shortage of skilled labour in the uk< bricklaying, plastering, chippy etc. Take people who are unemployable and train them in skilled jobs we need.

I think one of the problems in the uk is the breakdown in society, community spirit has gone, people don't take pride in themselves or their jobs or where they live anymore. Most people don't know their neighbours, it builds a nation of selfish individuals. What's in it for me way of thinking. The sooner this is addressed the better.

Kix

mikelincs

The major problems for people like pensioners, and I confess I'm one of them, is that the cost of utilities is going up much faster than the rate of inflation and therefore the pension, so while low increases in food etc lower inflation, utilities puts it up. Pensioners increases should be in line with the costs of things such as utilties and food, and not the other things that may reduce inflation but not affect pensioners.

Beakersful

Now, call me old fashioned, but I think there should be one earner in a family and the second adult should raise the kids, manage the household, etc.

Latchkey kids and break down in society are symptoms of both parents working to afford to manage a family. And if we can free up a lot of jobs, then unemployment, wage imbalances (gender) and other assorted problems gets pretty much wiped out surely?

ps. what's a multiple family household? If we have more than one wife do we lose less?