Not eligable for benefits

uktyler

Benefits are there to help those in NEED. Having £16,000 in the bank means you are not in need.

Why should we subsidise the OP's desire to buy a house?

I don't want my tax money spent on those who do not need it.

ceridwen

...and there was me thinking a house of one's own is a necessity - not a "desire". I hadnt realised one could easily find decent standard rented accommodation at a cheap price and never find oneself given notice for a reason nothing to do with oneself.........DUH!

I always thought rented accommodation is dear, often poor standard and one can be thrown out with very little notice even if one is doing nothing wrong...hence it is a "need" to have a home of one's own in order to avoid all that.....

Back when I had to live in the private rented sector for some years much earlier in my life I always knew I had a very bad standard of accommodation, was being charged too much for what it was and if the landlord sold it at a time I was unemployed I would have been up against accommodation adverts that almost uniformly state they dont want claimants....and even I could have been at risk of being homeless (or would they have changed their mind once they had seen how smartly I was dressed and heard a middleclass voice coming out of my mouth?). Personally - I'm glad I never had to find out if they would have ignored the unemployment - and just looked at me personally. I'm willing to bet its my income - rather than me - they would have been looking at.

It gives me a great deal greater peace of mind knowing that I own a house mortgage-free now - as nothing and nobody can throw me out of my home now - bar compulsory purchase (and they'd have great difficulty trying that one on me:cool: ) - so why, pray tell, is a home of ones own apparently not a necessity - comes in the same category as food and drink in my book.

going2die_rich

uktyler wrote: »

Benefits are there to help those in NEED. Having £16,000 in the bank means you are not in need.

Why should we subsidise the OP's desire to buy a house?

I don't want my tax money spent on those who do not need it.

Does that mean anyone who actually already has a house and goes on benefits should be made to give up a percentage of their home in return for benefits? After all, just because you have tied the money up in assets, then surely you could liquidate it to help yourself through tought times? Sell your car, furniture, sell up and use that?

Maybe get those without assets to give a kidney to the NHS since we are paying them in benefits for nothing?

I think the current benefit system is harsh as anyone can be saving and then lose their jobs. The benefit system then tries to penalise them for saving during that time, cutting back on whatever they did. Leading them to a worse conclusion than someone that spent everything they earned on holidays, drink etc.

It should really be that if you have worked all your life and then the last few years you are unable to find work, you should be allowed a greater savings allowance. £6k across the board without factoring in age or personal circumstance seems a harsh way of deciding who should and shouldn't be eligble.

Personally, I think homeowners should be loaned the benefit amounts with an aim to paying it back once they are employed or once their property is sold. Far too many old people hogging big houses and still living off the state. Perhaps giving most of the working age a grace period to find work if they have worked in the past though, as plenty of hard workign people can be out of work for short periods of time.

ceridwen

I see where you are coming from re the money being loaned to homeowners - but I dont feel its a realistic idea myself. I would feel aggrieved as a homeowner that I had to pay the money back - whilst a renter didnt. I would also wonder HOW the money was ever to be paid back. My house will never be sold in my lifetime and I am on such a poor salary in work that I might need to cash in some of the value of my house myself later in life to have enough income to live on. There would never be any available "house value" there to pay the State back.

Any thoughts of loans still smack of penalising people for prudence and I could see some homeowners deliberately selling their homes and going off into rented accommodation if they felt at risk of being put onto benefit income - so they wouldnt have to pay the money back ever. Myself - as someone just a few years from retirement now - I would seriously contemplate selling my house and buying a luxury caravan to live in and spending the difference at a rate of knots having all those holidays I denied myself in order to buy the house - so I was the one who had spent my money (rather than having to hand my own money to the State to repay any benefit received - when I hadnt chosen to be unemployed in the first place). Its my money - I've slogged for it - I will keep it no matter what.

Woodyrocks

ceridwen wrote: »

...and there was me thinking a house of one's own is a necessity - not a "desire". I hadnt realised one could easily find decent standard rented accommodation at a cheap price and never find oneself given notice for a reason nothing to do with oneself.........DUH!

I always thought rented accommodation is dear, often poor standard and one can be thrown out with very little notice even if one is doing nothing wrong...hence it is a "need" to have a home of one's own in order to avoid all that.....

Back when I had to live in the private rented sector for some years much earlier in my life I always knew I had a very bad standard of accommodation, was being charged too much for what it was and if the landlord sold it at a time I was unemployed I would have been up against accommodation adverts that almost uniformly state they dont want claimants....and even I could have been at risk of being homeless (or would they have changed their mind once they had seen how smartly I was dressed and heard a middleclass voice coming out of my mouth?). Personally - I'm glad I never had to find out if they would have ignored the unemployment - and just looked at me personally. I'm willing to bet its my income - rather than me - they would have been looking at.

It gives me a great deal greater peace of mind knowing that I own a house mortgage-free now - as nothing and nobody can throw me out of my home now - bar compulsory purchase (and they'd have great difficulty trying that one on me:cool: ) - so why, pray tell, is a home of ones own apparently not a necessity - comes in the same category as food and drink in my book.

It isn't a need though. It is NOT a neccessity in life that you NEED to own your house. Having a roof over your head, yes, but many live in rented accommodation all their lives and manage to survive. If it was a need they couldn't do without, a lot of the population would be in dire straits. Social Landlords don't throw people out unless they break their tenanacy agreement. If you are renting privately, they obviously you can afford the CHOICE of where you live in the first place so there again your arguement fails. Some people do not have that choice, let us not forget that :rolleyes:

I live in social housing and I have a DESIRE to own my own home one day but in the here and now, I LOVE my house and I feel safe and secure in knowing that it is mine for as long as I choose to have it. As long as I pay my rent and do not engage in behaviour or actions contrary to my tenancy agreement I know I have no need to worry about being homeless.

michaelvintner

daveboy wrote: »

You have £16k in savings yet you still want to take the taxpayer for a ride too?

Well done DWP - I don't want to pay to support someone who has enough to look after themselves.

What so someone who has paided into the system is not entitled to take it back out just because they have managed to save some. If someone works for 20 years and then loses their job but they have managed to save £16000 I say good on them. They HAVE PAID their taxes, they are a taxpayer who has lost their ability to pay tax.

So it is ok for someone to ponce off the rest of us for their entire life but someone who makes an effort should not get any help. I think your response is daft. If you lost your job tomorrow would you still have the same response?

They are entitled to contribution based JSA for 6 months, which hopefully should be enough time to find another job.

uktyler

ceridwen wrote: »

...and there was me thinking a house of one's own is a necessity - not a "desire". I hadnt realised one could easily find decent standard rented accommodation at a cheap price and never find oneself given notice for a reason nothing to do with oneself.........DUH!

A roof over your head is a necessity, owning your own home is not.

uktyler

michaelvintner wrote: »

What so someone who has paided into the system is not entitled to take it back out just because they have managed to save some. If someone works for 20 years and then loses their job but they have managed to save £16000 I say good on them. They HAVE PAID their taxes, they are a taxpayer who has lost their ability to pay tax.

So it is ok for someone to ponce off the rest of us for their entire life but someone who makes an effort should not get any help. I think your response is daft. If you lost your job tomorrow would you still have the same response?

I've paid into the state for 20 years (off and on), I've even paid taxes in the UK whilst I've worked abroad. If we allowed everyone in the OP's position to keep their savings your taxes would go up, are you happy for this to happen?

I would not. My tax money is wasted in enough ways, and I want the money I do give to be spent on those in need, not those who may want to buy a house in the future.

If I lost my job tomorrow I would spend my savings, as i don't want to ponce off of everyone else.

The OP is in rented accomodation at present, and I presume they are happy with it, the whole own your own home culture has a lot to answer for, why exactly should we help fund the OP's house purchase?

sharski

Well personally.... I would rather have people claiming JSA (Conts) for a mere 6 months after having paid into the system... than the current majority who claim for years having paid NOTHING....

It's not rocket science... God help you cynical people if you ever fall on hard times during this pending recession.. shame on you.

Bayblue

Surely the OP should be entitled to contributions based JSA for six months?