Are you happy to pay £3000k

[R1Geezer]

It seems that workshy scum and other benefits are costing working families £3k each per year. So how delighted are you to fund the fags and white lightening of work shy scum? Time to stop benifits completely for those able to work? OK give them food vouchers so they won't starve but really this isn't funny. Front of the Express but I don't think they made it up.

[ummmm]

And why do people always presume that the unemployed smoke and drink cheap cider?

[modeller]

They don't they prefer Champagne.

[Gromit]

I wonder how much the country was paying in the 18 years prior to 1997, when the number of unemployed was double what it is now?

[DTCwordfan]

I'm reasonably happy with £3k but not £3000k (= 3 mln), R1Geezer; I think you have a miscalculation there.

[Gromit]

And with the number of unemployed rising daily and predicted to get much higher, that £3K wil be £4K then £5K very soon.

http://www.financemar...nt-rate-rises-to-7-9/

[brionon]

Over 2 Million unemployed, are they ALL workshy scum ?

[bazwillrun]

"So how delighted are you to fund the fags and white lightening of work shy scum?"

compared to the billions thats been and still is being fiddled by immigrant claimants for the past 40 or so years i'm not that unhappy really

[boxtops]

I know people who are not working who have just been made redundant, and are desperately looking for work in order to be able to carry on paying their mortgages - as I would have to.

[starone]

Not all of them. My son worked in the Ministry of Works and Pensions and he said many of the men who came looking for jobs were in tears because they had been made redundant and in spite of constant efforts were unable to get another job. It is all very well to say get a job, but if there are none what can you do? And if there are a few there are hundreds of applicants, many with good credentials, - the competition is so great. I am very glad I am retired and do not have to go into such a situation.

[donna1901]

you can tell by the person who is actually playing the system and the ones who are actually seeking work with no success! there are little jobs out there and i feel sorry for any working family if a member comes out of work but the job seekers allowance is poor. £65 approx per week! from working at 250 a week to that is so bad! especially when its no fault of there own :(

[mightywease]

I am more than happy to pay that each year because who knows if I may end up in that situation one day and will need help.

Before chastising the 'workshy' I would rather first take a look at tax dodgers, MP's expenses (still), bank and big business bonuses etc..

[R1Geezer]

i think most realise i'm talking about the career workshy.yes DT, the k is superfluous!

[flip_flop]

Its pretty obvious (isn't it?) that Geezer is referring to those that choose not to work, not those that are seeking work.

[Gromit]

http://www.dailyexpre....uk/posts/view/220115

Can't understand the figures:

UK unemployment - £2,500,000 (£2.5M)
UK unemployed for over 12 months - 250,000 (£0.25M)
Cost: £48,000,000,000 (£48Billion)

So every unemployed person gets an average of £19,200

There are 29,000,000 people in employment in the UK.

So 29,000,000 X £3,000 = £87,000,000,000 (£87 billion, or £39 billion more than the total benefits bill))

[bednobs]

most "hard working families" also recieve benefits
for example, child benefit amounts to around £1000 PA if you have 1 child, or if you have 2, nearly £2000. if you add in tax credits etc probably "hard working families" take out about what they put in. That is of course if you don't add in how much it costs to educate children, provide health services etc

[starone]

Forgot to say that although I am retired I still pay £70 a month income tax - the state retirement pension is taxable.

[Huderon]

Oh, the Express does like to play with numbers, don't they ?

///The figures show there are currently 3.9 million households in the UK where at least one adult aged 16 to 64 is not in employment.///

Well there are two in this household ... one is at school, the other at uni, so I guess we are one of the 3.9 million households being supported by benefits ? Not really, because there are two working adults here, and the only form of benefit we receive is Child Benefit for the younger child.

And what about those other households where there may be at least one person unemployed but which include one or more person working ?

A rise in the bill by £200 per household over 13 years works out at around £15 a year, probably not even close to the rate of inflation over that period.

My guess ... someone at the Express has done some crude math in order to support a non-story and back the government's drive to cut benefits by creating outrage amongst the more right leaning members of the populace

[birdie1971]

^^^ “... so I guess we are one of the 3.9 million households being supported by benefits ? Not really, because there are two working adults here, and the only form of benefit we receive is Child Benefit for the younger child.”

When you were typing the above, did it not strike you as rather facetious that you seemed to be ridiculing the idea of being included in a count of those receiving State benefits whilst in receipt of State benefits?

You are being supported by benefits. You get benefits for your youngest. Please can you explain to me why you think that your situation disqualifies you from being lumped in with those other 3.9 million households receiving benefits?

By your own admission, you receive state help; even though, again by your own admission, you and your partner both have jobs.

[Huderon]

Because, bbirdie1971, child benefit is universal - it goes to all families which have children regardless of income.

The Express article excluded that and housing from the totals they used (///Our total benefits bill amounts to £192billion a year when other pay-outs such as housing and child benefit are taken into account.///), but forgot to mention whether they had excluded households like ours from the 3.9 million figure they quote as having at least one unemployed person in the household.

With that kind of article, unless you know what is and isn't included in the figures, you can't really have a clear picture of what the numbers represent, and that, in my opinion, makes the piece just another scare story.