'Forced' work from Job Center.

1246789

Comments

  • Mersey_2
    Mersey_2 Posts: 1,679 Forumite
    takman wrote: »
    But whatever tax that they have paid in the past is irrelevant because that isn't a requirment of claiming JSA.

    So technically it is "free money" .



    Incorrect.


    That's why it's called contributions-based JSA.


    The very entitlement to it, is indeed based purely and only on what they have contributed in NICs in the past.


    Income-based JSA is, however, based on a means test and not previous payment in the past.
    Please be polite to OPs and remember this is a site for Claimants and Appellants to seek redress against their bank, ex-boss or retailer. If they wanted morality or the view of the IoD or Bank they'd ask them.
  • takman
    takman Posts: 3,876
    Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    Mersey wrote: »
    Incorrect.


    That's why it's called contributions-based JSA.


    The very entitlement to it, is indeed based purely and only on what they have contributed in NICs in the past.


    Income-based JSA is, however, based on a means test and not previous payment in the past.



    Yes i know there are two types of JSA but past contributions only dictate what type you claim. So considering you can still claim JSA if you have made no contributions then what i said was correct.


    So considering i never mentioned contribution based JSA in my post you are in fact incorrect by saying i was incorrect!
  • Doshwaster
    Doshwaster Posts: 6,131
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    Mersey wrote: »
    Incorrect.


    That's why it's called contributions-based JSA.

    If paying tens of thousands of pounds in NI qualifies you for 70-odd quid a week then it doesn't seem to be a very good insurance scheme. No wonder a lot of taxpayers are resentful.
  • Mersey wrote: »
    Incidentally, the Mandatory 'workfare' schemes were abolished 16 months ago, so even if your advisor has been away on maternity or other leave, she has no excuse for not knowing this:


    www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dwp-scraps-mandatory-work-for-your-benefits-scheme-without-fanfare-a6750041.html

    Unless she's an elephant
  • Mersey_2
    Mersey_2 Posts: 1,679 Forumite
    takman wrote: »

    So considering i never mentioned contribution based JSA in my post you are in fact incorrect by saying i was incorrect!



    You stated past conts were "irrelevant" - I was merely pointing out to others why that was wrong.


    Conts determine entitlement as I explained. Hence it's name!


    I'm glad you realise this - but it is not what you wrote.
    Please be polite to OPs and remember this is a site for Claimants and Appellants to seek redress against their bank, ex-boss or retailer. If they wanted morality or the view of the IoD or Bank they'd ask them.
  • gettingready
    gettingready Posts: 11,330
    Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    takman wrote: »
    Another way to look at it is that the more that someone earned before they lost their job the more they could save so they wouldn't have to rely on benefits as much.

    Sure - so people who work have to scrape and save and people who NEVER worked can enjoy their Jeremy Kyle... sure...
  • paddedjohn
    paddedjohn Posts: 7,512
    First Anniversary
    Forumite
    Doshwaster wrote: »
    If I was out of work I wouldn't bother signing on just for £73 a week. Far easier to live off savings until another job comes along and then you don't have to take part in any of these job centre schemes.

    Idiotic post to say the least, you assume everyone has savings and also assume that those that do can make them last until they find a job. Idiot.
    Be Alert..........Britain needs lerts.
  • Red-Squirrel_2
    Red-Squirrel_2 Posts: 4,341 Forumite
    And the bold bit is what is wrong in this country.

    Believe it or not but in some countries JSA is a percentage of previous salary of the claimant.

    People that never worked get the bare minimum and people that did and contributed - get a percentage of their average previous income for the first year.

    Here - everyone gets the same regardless and that is extremely unfair and simply wrong.

    Benefits should be based on need, not on how much somebody (who?) decides they deserve. The people who have earned the most are surely the most likely to have savings and better job prospects anyway, why should they be given more while some of the most disadvantaged people in society who've had it the hardest are left with barely anything?
  • Red-Squirrel_2
    Red-Squirrel_2 Posts: 4,341 Forumite
    ACG wrote: »
    This thread has made me smile. My first thought was your getting paid to do nothing at the minute and you are happy with that, but you are not happy to work and get paid less than NMW.

    But as I read more replies, I thought about it a little more. I can not remember how much I have paid in Tax, NI, Council tax, corporation tax, tax on goods, fuel, stamp duty etc etc and I would be a bit peeved if someone told me I had to go and work for free (or £2 an hour).

    But then I kept coming back to the same thing, last month I was quite ill - nothing serious just a pretty bad cold. I was too tired to go out, but by the 3rd day I was THAT bored I just went for a walk to the end of the road and back (20 minutes!) just to get out of the house. I hate doing nothing, if my options were JSA and sitting at home or JSA and working for free, I would chose the latter every time. If nothing else it gets me out of the house, it goes on my CV and I might end up meeting new people or getting a job at the end of it.

    Im not going to judge (not that you would care anyway hopefully), but maybe look at the bigger picture rather than just the next 2 months. As the old saying goes, it is easier to get a job if you have one.

    When I was on JSA I wasn't sitting at home doing nothing! I was applying for jobs every single day, I was volunteering, I took some courses. I would have been rather peeved to have had to stop doing my productive, job hunting activities to go and provide free labour for an employer that should be taking people on if it has work that needs doing!

    From what I understand, these 'work placements' are hardly ever at places where useful skills can be gained or that would enhance most CVs. I think they are only ever remotely useful for people who have literally never worked and need to be able to demonstrate that they can turn up on time each day and follow basic instructions. Even people in that situation though should be paid the NMW for their work.
  • Doshwaster
    Doshwaster Posts: 6,131
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    paddedjohn wrote: »
    Idiotic post to say the least, you assume everyone has savings and also assume that those that do can make them last until they find a job. Idiot.

    Why is it idiotic to want to support yourself? At least I wouldn't be costing the taxpayer any money. Benefits should be there as a safety net for those who really need the help, not an automatic right.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards