I think we both agree on this, the way we go about it is where we differ, people working should be paid a living wage meaning that once all bills are paid they are better off working, you'd cut benefits so hard you'd force them into a low paid job and in work benefits.

Woooosh...

Sal, please be careful when differentiating all those on benefits from those who are not. When Universal Credit comes in, Housing benefit and Working Tax will be subsumed into Universal Credit and many people who would consider themselves workers will be on " benefit".
It may include you.

You clearly missed the sarcasm.

Any word yet on what those who don't own any smart clothes should wear for interviews, Sal?

The incentive to work or not has sod all to do with benefits since the vast majority of benefits are paid regardless of whether you work or not. The only (off the top of my head) benefit that requires you not to be working is JSA which adds up to 11 hours of work a week on the minimum wage.
People are not deliberately deciding not to work because they're living so well off the £71 per week JSA. There are far bigger barriers to entering the job market than benefits. Issues, which you derided, such as no access to car (2/3rds of people on JSA don't have access to a car), poor education, poor skills, high childcare costs, high housing and living costs in certain areas, and lack of job vacancies are far more important issues than whether JSA has risen by a couple of pounds a week.

Even if the country were at full employment, having no unemployed would only reduce the benefits bill by £4.9bn. Which is roughly the same as the increase in State Pension payments from 2010/11 to 2011/12.
Unemployment benefit is 3.1% of benefit spending.

So, which benefits are these 9 of your family receiving?

Disability - so disabled they were able run a thriving drug production and distribution business, child benefit, JSA, housing benefit, council tax relief, what amazes me is none of them are married but they have children and live together but consider their status single? No doubt there will be some extra monies to be derived from this.

Housing Benefit is a good example of the above: you get this if you are on a low income. Being on JSA (IB) or ESA (IR) would class you as receiving a low income. So would many jobs in the South-East.
Therefore you get someone complaining that their neighbour gets (say) £400 a week on JSA whilst they work for £320 a week. They have not factored in Housing Benefit. In London, the Housing Benefit might be £330 just so the person can live in the property and that person often has to use some of the £71 JSA to top up the rent.

Mr Cameron's Benefit Cap changes included two to cut this cost: Housing Benefit Cap and Benefit Cap (confused?: so are many). The latter is now been brought in by stages as the advisors are telling the cabinet that reducing the Housing Benefit paid to claimants is not going to force landlords to reduce rents but will force people out of London.

To answer Sal's comments on his relatives: the only way such sums could be amassed by these people is through the black economy. So why have they not been reported?
Also Sal, and I accept this may not apply to you, saying to someone on £500 a week that they will not have a wage increase has a less impact on basic living quality than saying it to someone on £71 a week.

So when they did have a job how did they get it in the first place if they didn't have any appropriate clothing for the interview? I am still wearing suits that are >10 years old no problem - looked after clothes will last many years.

Do you honestly think they get their benefits and go OK I will put some of this aside for suitable clothing for when I get a job interview?

I am not talking about me I am talking about guys/girls earning 15k with a family to support