Benefits should only be cut during times of prosperity, not austerity, surely?

You are missing the fact that this government doesn't give a rat's ass about anyone on benefits. Anyone with so little money is not worth thinking about. They're all scroungers anyway, right?

Submit an article to the Daily Mail. Then sit back and wait for the abuse.

I think in this flood analogy the lifeboats are the benefits - so therefore the majority you are talking about won't need them but increasing numbers of people will because they are losing their jobs/being swallowed by the flood. Those living in the big houses on top of the hill will be fine whether there's a flood or not.

Ah yes 'The Taxpayers' like Google, Amazon, Costa and The Duchy of Cornwall you mean? Get real.

Yes, they need that security blanket when they're queuing in the food bank don't they?

Biggus, I can see your point of view and it's obviously commendable to work if you can, but if you were to lose your job/fall into the flood tomorrow I think you would appreciate there being enough benefits/lifeboats to keep you from drowning. The problem with austerity is it ultimately puts more people out of work, with fewer jobs to go round and less in benefits to help those with no jobs. So you need to find a job because benefits are scarce, but you can't because jobs are also scarce. Well-wisher's original point holds true. Not to mention the futility of trying to kick-start an economy while substantially reducing so many people's spending power.

The much maligned (and often misunderstood) Daily Mail ran its front page today on how our tireless fuckwit civil servants managed to spend £1.1 billion on their juicy taxpayer-funded bank cards in one year, four times the figure of ten years ago but similar to that when Labour were in. I think there are 137,000 civil servants, which makes their average annual expense-bill about £8,000 each, which probably equates to the total spend on a jobseeker with rent included. Alright for some, innit. Austerity or not, the bottom of the pile should never be marginalised to pay for these jobsworth twit daydreamers but how else are the government expected to keep them quiet over their appalling record for corruption? A right state.

Of course people who are able to work, and can find work, should do so. However when folk are marginalised due to disability, physical or mental, we have a responsibility to care for rather than attacking. My adult children live in decent houses, are productively employed, I was part of the under-class so had little self esteem or focus that life could be better. Why can't people see that whilst this division between those in poverty and those fortunate to be in work exists then little can and will change.

Little kids will be suffering with relative poverty, little kids will be bullied and made to feel different, little kids will grow up to big kids feeling bruised and angry with a society that let them down. The way the benefit system is administered is crazy. Yes crazy....money given to addicts whilst kids and real care givers are ignored.

the benefit system should not be cut. The adjuncts in times of prosperity don't apply if you're on benefits. Use any measure you like the gap between rich and poor is widing. Friedman economics has been proven to be an ongoing disaster-- for all but the few. I despair of braying humanity (Daily Mail, The Sun readers) that offers up victims and rejoices at their suffering.

I'm not too sure about the amount of benefits people get in the UK, but I can tell you that in the Netherlands things are very bad. For example there is no such thing as disability benefit, and a carer will get a 'complimentary' €200 a YEAR as a 'thank you' fir being a carer. Monthly benefits for a single person are €866 (£748) and from this EVERYTHING has to be paid - rent, health insurance, utilities, phone, internet, food, clothing - you get the picture. There is a very small rent and health insurance subsidy. A couple get slightly more. Children's allowance is very low and decreases with the number of children. Furthermore, when the child reaches 5, parents have to go back to work, single or not. Food banks are rife and increasing daily. However, to qualify to receive food, you need to have less than €200 (£173) PER MONTH to spend on food, clothes etc. Needless to say, many people on benefits have even less than that. Also, the tax bastards will deliberately look into a persons account (even those on min income (and benefits is 70% of the min)when their subsidies are in,thereby taking people over the €936 (£809) you are allowed to have in your bank account, thus forcing them to pay taxes such as water rates, etc. If you refuse,or protest, they just take it it out of your account anyway. If you're lucky, they let you pay in instalments, meaning another €55 a month from people's €200 food money. As I said, I don't know about UK benefits (except what I read in various papers), but surely they aren't as dire as this? http://www.ukauthors.com

Jobseeker allowance is £56.80 per week for a single person.

The Tories will not be satisfied until the chorus of their alma mater's anthem "if you don't work you don't eat (regardless of personal circumstance)" is adopted as the country's national anthem.

'Jobseeker allowance is £56.80 per week for a single person.'....they must be able to get more than that though, surely? What about rent, utilities, food and so on? http://www.ukauthors.com

Housing benfit can also be claimed (but not for mortgage relief).

Yes, here you can't get any benefits at all if you own a property - you have to sell it first and live off the proceeds. Only when you're totally skint can you re-apply. And no benefits at all if you're under 27, either. You're supposed to scrounge from the family, I gather :) So...assuming the rent's paid, that £56.80 (for a single person) has to cover everything else? http://www.ukauthors.com

yes, in most cases, to a local authority or private landlord, but it's capped and the introdction of the bedroom tax is designed to penalise those without property and on benefits by asking them to pay more (out of the state's largesse of £56.80) for having more space than they need.