I am a single working parent, with two children, one of whom has special needs. I have to work part-time, as I was unable to find childcare where I live. When one of my colleagues retired last year, I was offered a few extra hours, which I would have liked to take. However, when I checked the financial implications, I discovered that whilst I would have earned an extra �1200 pa, I would have lost �1700 in benefits! Financially, I would be better off if I gave up work completely. I would be interested to know where the logic is, and where is the incentive for people to get out of the "benefits trap".
Patricia Littler, UK

I have friends in London who cannot afford to come off benefits. They would have to take home �400 per week simply to pay rent, council tax, gas electricity etc. Oh and there's always the luxury of food. Tell me how far the minimum wage goes in the real world?
Sheila White, England

It seems there are those who feel inadequate to take responsibility for themselves. They have children and qualify for housing, council tax and many other benefits. If they have a child aged 9 or 10 years, will the proposed policy not simply encourage those affected to have another child in order to keep their benefit allowances?
Mrs S Harper, England

These were some of your comments on the Politics Show on Sunday 04 March 2007 at 12:00 GMT on BBC One.

You can reach the programme by using the form below to message the Politics Show.

Disclaimer: The BBC may edit your comments and cannot guarantee that all emails will be published.