My view is, if you had read and understood what was written in the last sentence of my previous post, you would not be stating the bleeding obvious, re DWP guidelines! And as I am not familiar with their pamphlets/guidelines etc, I was indeed gob smacked that you could receive 32k.

Would it not be a hell of a lot cheaper, if all Agencies simply handed out a Cosco card to those with a large state subsidised family, enabling them to bulk buy, and possibly leading to increased job vacancies created by this hitherto untapped market??

Bulk buying of garlic bread....it's the future!

That would a reasonable point, and I recall the "poverty trap" when I studied economics many moons ago, but the report states"

[i"She currently receives around £31,200 a year – £2,600 a month – through a combination of housing benefit, child benefit, child tax credits and income support."[/i

Given that if she was working she may well receive a similar amount (certainly the child benefit and possibly reduced amounts of housing benefit and child tax credits), then the motivation to work may be there as she could end up with more than the £32K.

Which previous post?

If you have a beef with the amounts available, take it up with your MP, and don't pick on the people who claim what they are permitted, under the law, to claim.

So that means we will always have around 2 million on benefits for the foreseeable future. I presume you are OK with these people receiving benefits while they look for work?



What would you suggest would motivate her to apply for these jobs? Simply reducing her benefit? The threat of prison maybe?

A job on minimum wage for 40 hours a week for 48 weeks a year gives you just over £12K a year outside London so if her benefits were cut to less than that so she was incentivised to look for work would that suit you?

The fact she then wouldn't have enough to pay the rent or live off would be by the by??? If not then you must be in favour of her wage being topped up to a level that would be adequate for that. In which case you are simply subsidising employers profits.

And of course we are assuming she could even get a job that was full time on minimum wage that wasn't casual or on a zero hours contract/temporary work.

There are alternatives to the austerity that even the IMF, that bastion of lefty thinking, thinks is holding back growth.



Yes. You keep repeating this one example. And you keep telling us all how dreadful it is – and demanding that we all go 'how dreadful!' too and throw up our little handies into the air.

Are you really so stupid that you 'think' that there is a mass number of situations exactly like this?

I don't think you are that stupid. In which case, you are clinging to this one example for precisely the same reasons as the rag that published it – as a way of attacking a far wider number of people, and without offering any sort of an actual response to the issue beyond that throwing of your mitts into the air in horror and demanding that everyone else do the same and, when they don't, effectively changing tack to attack them for not following your example.

Oh, behave yourself M. It is a matter of complete indifference to me personally, that a quango of bolshie Left wingers and a couple of the bewildered and lost souls you find posting on the Sin Bin, do not agree with me.

I was genuinely surprised that sort of money was available, and yes, the slant of the article, 20 years without a job etc did nothing to mitigate that feeling. I always smile though when people take the time to point out the obvious, ie, "this is an extreme example, blah blah....." and then post as an example a salary on minimum wage! So one dimensional don't you think? As is measuring your response, not to the contents of the article, but to the newspaper which published it.

There's nowt so queer as folk.

Poor little lambikins.

Thankfully you don't come into the "bewildered and lost souls you find posting on the Sin Bin", eh? blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehous ... and-right/