Need salary of £36,000 to take home more than benefits cap

People on less than £36k are dolts.

They can get more on benefits.

Apparently in the UK the median wage is £28k so the majority of people would be better off on benefits.

Why are UK people so stupid they work rather than go on benefits?

Jeez.

A lot of people (rightfully) have pride. Cut benefits to minimum-wage-take-home-pay-minus-£1000

The majority of people on the median £28K are probably already on benefits in the form of housing benefit, council tax benefit and tax credits.

It is a complete lie spun by the right wing media that people would be better off not working. You get more in your wage than you do if you were not getting a wage, compare £71 per week with £130+ tax credits.

You are better off in work than out of work.

The whole point of the benefits system is that it should be uncomfortable so people are always looking for work, yes give them enough to eat (food vouchers not just cash in order to make sure that they are buying food) and to have a roof for themselves and water and electricity and a very most a tv (with freeview but definitely not sky or virgin, something a lot of benefit claimers claim), if they are in a posh area of London living in million pound council houses they should be forced to move! Simple as that, if they don't want to contribute then they should compromise too. Child benefit and tax credit should only be given for two or less children.

Make it uncomfortable for the disabled and carers?

Why do you want to put people off being carers? Way cheaper than the state picking up the full tab.

Benefits cap meaning the maximum any one person can receive? I assume any unemployed person who receives anywhere near that kind of money will have some sort of handicap preventing them from working and costing them a significant amount, or someone raising a lot of children, in which case giving them less money would only harm the kids.

I understand your what you're saying and your frustration, but I don't think it's quite so clean cut and obscene as you make it out to be.

The whole point of the benefits system is that it should be uncomfortable so people are always looking for work, yes give them enough to eat (food vouchers not just cash in order to make sure that they are buying food) and to have a roof for themselves and water and electricity and a very most a tv (with freeview but definitely not sky or virgin, something a lot of benefit claimers claim), if they are in a posh area of London living in million pound council houses they should be forced to move! Simple as that, if they don't want to contribute then they should compromise too. Child benefit and tax credit should only be given for two or less children.

Somebody can have a full time job earning minimum wage + credits- less than £25,000?
Another person receives maximum benefits cap £25,000

So how do you conclude you receive more by working?

Minimum wage (assuming £13k) means take-home pay of £11.7k and I doubt all those tax credits etc total £14k?!?!

The whole point of the benefits system is that it should be uncomfortable so people are always looking for work, yes give them enough to eat (food vouchers not just cash in order to make sure that they are buying food) and to have a roof for themselves and water and electricity and a very most a tv (with freeview but definitely not sky or virgin, something a lot of benefit claimers claim), if they are in a posh area of London living in million pound council houses they should be forced to move! Simple as that, if they don't want to contribute then they should compromise too. Child benefit and tax credit should only be given for two or less children.

Why should it be uncomfortable? What is so great about everyone busting their ass to look for work, especially in a knowledge economy with an elastic labour force which means there are loads more unemployed than vacancies even at the best of times? It's pointless forcing everyone to look for work and paying to administer that. Just shut all the job centres and give them the money as a birthright.

And I assure you nobody on out-of-work benefits can afford Sky. They may have a TV because they're a one-off cost, they may have got it before they lost their job or on Freecycle, and it's easy enough to dodge the TV licence. It may be the case that luxuries are affordable with family/child-related benefits which I do think are an area which could potentially be looked at, though since Hitler it's been a bit of a taboo trying to tell people how many kids they're allowed to have.

I agree on your final comment, but see what I just said.

A lot of people (rightfully) have pride. Cut benefits to minimum-wage-take-home-pay-minus-£1000

What happens to someone's Sky subscription when their circumstances change and they need to take up an out-of-work benefit?

Well you'll be happy to learn that nobody in real life gets the benefits cap then won't you?

You also ignore the fact that even if you have 12 children and get 12 lots of child benefit (which I don't think is even allowed), you still have to pay for those 12 children, this is different to a single person, childless couple or normal family on £36,000.