It is quite possible for a person from a very rich and privileged background to genuinely care about the plight of the poor, and to do something constructive to improve it (Osborne to cut £4bn more from benefits, 10 September). It is much harder for such a person to have any real comprehension of what it feels like to live in poverty, with little or no prospect of escape, no matter how hard they work.
To call living on benefit in any shape or form a "lifestyle choice" is the most crass and insulting demonstration of patrician insensitivity and ignorance to have crossed the lips of any politician in recent times. Polly Toynbee's experience as a low-paid worker provided an invaluable insight into a life that George Osborne will never have encountered.
The government has to make up its mind whether it is in power to help its citizens, or to punish them. The bankers can easily escape any attack on their lifestyle choices, the poor can't even find a way to exercise theirs.
Sierra Hutton-Wilson
• Osborne's comments about benefit claimants are ill-informed and unpleasant. There is already a battery of sanctions available to benefits officials and the government's own figures show that people with mental health problems, disabilities or from minority ethnic groups get sanctioned disproportionately. Indeed, to its shame New Labour ratcheted up the sanctions.
Long-term benefit dependence arises from a combination of the UK's obsession with delivering income maintenance through means testing, the high cost of transport, housing and childcare in the UK and the lack of appropriate skills among the post-industrial population – not to mention the lack of decently paid unskilled jobs. The increase in ill-health benefit claims is directly correlated to the increase in ill health among the poorest, mirroring the growth in health inequalities as a result of income inequalities. It is the legacy of the 1980s.
Cutting benefits not only avoids addressing the causes of long-term poverty, but simply pushes these people into the arms of the even more costly criminal justice, health and social care services.
The lack of a principled response from Labour's frontbench shows just how far politicians of all the main parties have lost sight of why we have a benefits system in the first place and how fashionable it has become to perpetuate the image of lazy scroungers rather than people trapped by circumstances.
Neil Bateman
Ipswich, Suffolk
• In my own experience as a paid Citizen's Advice Bureau adviser, most people are very keen to find work and realise that apart from the financial benefit, work provides one with better health and self-esteem. It is a complete myth that there is a large sector of the population that choose not to work. In any case, there are sanctions and medicals to review entitlement of out-of-work benefits.
To suggest that there is a lifestyle choice available on benefits is not only misleading but demonstrates the huge misunderstanding of the problems and difficulties of living on benefits. To live off £102 as a couple leaves nothing that can remotely be described as a "lifestyle".
If indeed there are (a very few) people who are "work-shy", this is the fault of our society in not preparing those individuals for life and giving them the necessary skills. For that reason, Sure Start is critical and must be protected from cuts – the true value of education and nurturing our children, especially the under-fives, will not be truly seen for a generation.
We have a responsibility to protect the children in our society who are born into poverty, and we must put in place even more measures to provide equal opportunities for those in the most need.
Richard Bridge
Snaith, East Yorkshire
• We don't think that the government has properly thought through the impact of its welfare reform on disabled people. We understand that budgets need to be balanced, but just simply cutting them could be the road to ruin for many. Where is the understanding that it costs more to live as a disabled person, or that to find employment many will need individually tailored support?
Crucially, we've yet to see the evidence from the government that disabled people who are unable to work will continue to receive the "protection" they need. Being disabled is not a "lifestyle choice" and we want the government to fully understand the consequences of any action it takes.
Richard Hawkes
Chief executive, Scope
• Blaming the poor for their laziness and misfortune in life is a much repeated strategy and never seems to be connected with another kind of debate we might have about "lifestyle choices". The alternative debate would focus on the rich and their lifestyle choices – tax avoidance (sorry management), second home ownership and a lifestyle which contributes far more to the human impact on climate than the poor via multiple car ownership and overseas flights.
Klaus Dodds
Egham, Surrey
• The number of people claiming jobseeker's allowance in Tottenham on the latest figures (July 2010) is 5,880. The number of registered vacancies is 254. Osborne's words suggest that he plans a swift return to the Thatcherite 1980s.
Keith Flett
Chair, Haringey Trades Union Council
• There is still much argument about "progressive cuts" – will top earners suffer a 3% decrease in income and the bottom group be hit with cuts of 5%? Or vice versa? This is a distraction. Top earners can shrug off a 5% reduction, middle earners can (usually) rearrange a few things and manage 5%, while those at the bottom have nothing to spare and 5% is a cut to the bone.
Ed Wilson
Stockport, Greater Manchester
