Benefits: pay people a decent wage so they don't need topping up

The need for a living wage has never been greater
  • The Observer,
  • Jump to comments ()

I didn't think I could be more appalled by the stupidity of the coalition government and its attacks on the welfare state, but reading that soldiers and nurses doing full-time jobs need benefits shows how appalling the situation is ("Revealed: soldiers and nurses hit by benefits curbs", News).

Taxpayers already pay the wages of the people doing these vital jobs; isn't it utterly stupid that we also have to top up their lousy wages so they can have enough to live on?

We need a living wage now, to ensure that all people doing a full-time job have enough to live on without further benefits and support. At £10.30 an hour in London, it isn't asking much. And I say that as a pensioner.

David Reed

London NW3

As a Lib Dem supporter, I share your concerns regarding some of the rhetoric used by the Tories regarding "shirkers and scroungers". However, I found the presentation of financial information in this article, particularly the combination of weekly earnings with annual loss of benefits, to be confusing and emotive. The distorted information read more like a Labour party propaganda flyer than an authoritative and independent piece from a leading newspaper.

A quick reversal of that presentation would say the second lieutenant with three children who is currently earning £24,440 and receiving £12,258 in benefits will be receiving benefits increased to £12,637 in 2015. That represents a reduction of £10.61 per week compared to the increase if benefits had kept base with inflation. Presented that way, the cuts do not seem as draconian, although I'm sure there will be genuine hardship for many families.

Drew Durning

Chalfont St Peter

In James Plunkett's commentary ("Whatever Osborne's rhetoric, strivers, not skivers, will suffer most", In Focus), he touches on the high cost of providing welfare for pensioners. But instead of looking at working-age people to fund it, shouldn't we be looking at the large sums of ex-pensioners' money that are handed out tax free for no valid reason? I refer to inheritance where lucky people are given a sum of money. From any other source, that gift would be subject to tax – one rule for the living and one for the dead. Abolish that anomaly and the funding problem is solved.

Derek Dod


I regard the government as contemptible. Nevertheless, I cannot accept that life is going to be as grim as made out for a household earning £600 a week just because the rise in benefits is going to be capped at 1%, and they will lose £424 a year. That is, less than one week's income out of 52 or just over £8 a week.

Until I am shown detailed accounts of the weekly and annual spending of individual households that prove me wrong, I shall suspect that complainants are spoilt members of our consumer society rather than people with a genuine grievance. My wife and I are pensioners whose total combined income from all sources is £12,219, or £235 a week. Apart from less than £800, that all comes from the state.

I consider that I live in luxury. We enjoy an ample and healthy diet; we live in a warm home; we have hi-fi, television and DVD recorder, PC and laptop, washing machine and dishwasher. We give about £900 a year to overseas aid charities. True, we paid off our mortgage long ago. Let us assume that this couple, with two children, earning £600 a week, spend half of that on rent or mortgage payments. That still leaves £333 if we include child benefit.

What people in Britain should be complaining about is that the government does not join with other rich countries to take serious steps to halt global warming and get rid of genuine poverty around the world.

Amorey Gethin


Today's best video

Today in pictures

More from The big issue