Moral maze

Pobby

Listening to radio 4 news tonight the worsening unemployment figures were being discussed. They seem to be screwed up somewhat as people are not claiming benefits. This is due to no entitlement. The interview that got me was the guy who had worked for many years and was told that due to his savings he would get nothing and had to live on that.

Is that fair? My wife was ill for 2 years and there was no way we were trying to claim. Goodness me, at the time my business gave me a gross income of around £54k a year and totally no need to or indeed did we want to.

Now in my book, someone who has been suss enough to lay aside some money should not be asked to spend it having paid ni and tax for many years. From the sound of it the guy being interviewed was middle aged. If like me, savings have been put in place to bolster our pensions.

Having paid for many years a lot of tax, self employed, I would have thought that something was due back?

About 10 years ago, unemployed, I did the city taxi knowledge and there is always a couple of bob to be made there.Not the greatest job in the world and can be dangerous ferrying around the chavs, drug dealers and ladies of the night but it is always an option.

In fact I dare say we could live on my wifes lowish wages but even so, the guy being interviewed I felt was being unfairly treated.

Like to know your thoughts.

mr.broderick

Pobby wrote: »

Listening to radio 4 news tonight the worsening unemployment figures were being discussed. They seem to be screwed up somewhat as people are not claiming benefits. This is due to no entitlement. The interview that got me was the guy who had worked for many years and was told that due to his savings he would get nothing and had to live on that.

Is that fair? My wife was ill for 2 years and there was no way we were trying to claim. Goodness me, at the time my business gave me a gross income of around £54k a year and totally no need to or indeed did we want to.

Now in my book, someone who has been suss enough to lay aside some money should not be asked to spend it having paid ni and tax for many years. From the sound of it the guy being interviewed was middle aged. If like me, savings have been put in place to bolster our pensions.

Having paid for many years a lot of tax, self employed, I would have thought that something was due back?

About 10 years ago, unemployed, I did the city taxi knowledge and there is always a couple of bob to be made there.Not the greatest job in the world and can be dangerous ferrying around the chavs, drug dealers and ladies of the night but it is always an option.

In fact I dare say we could live on my wifes lowish wages but even so, the guy being interviewed I felt was being unfairly treated.

Like to know your thoughts.

My thoughts pobby?
I have to share this vision.

Pobby "Where to Guvna?"
Customer "Kings Cross"
Pobby "What do you think about Ronaldo Going to Madrid?"

Pobby

mr.broderick wrote: »

My thoughts pobby?
I have to share this vision.

Pobby "Where to Guvna?"
Customer "Kings Cross"
Pobby "What do you think about Ronaldo Going to Madrid?"

Been there, done that. Wasn`t quite the same as travelling a lot of the world in my job as a far younger man but it made pennies. Btw, who`s Ronaldo????

mr.broderick

Pobby wrote: »

Been there, done that. Wasn`t quite the same as travelling a lot of the world in my job as a far younger man but it made pennies. Btw, who`s Ronaldo????

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=23361347&postcount=1

Shakethedisease

Having paid for many years a lot of tax, self employed, I would have thought that something was due back?

Nothing is 'due back'. Benefits are for those with no savings, no way to pay for a roof over their head, cannot work can't find a job' etc etc

Benefits by their very definition are for those with NOTHING to fall back on. It's not a cash machine whereby you can put money in and take it back later. It doesn't work like that.
That's how it is and when you have no money left, or can't financially cope with the basics..that's when you'll qualify. Wether it's starting out and living a life off them, or losing your job when you're 55.

Benefits have never been there to supplement those with 100k in the bank but have just lost their job, or those with partners who are still working ( on 54k a year ). It may seem unfair, but as with everything, surely you have to draw the line somewhere ?

Nothing to fall back on, truly means nothing. I think if we remove even that then we're back to the workhouses ? That'll teach them eh ? Only it won't, we'll have children starving and old people freezing to death in their 1000's every year. Unemployment is rising at record rates, those that have saved, have something to keep a roof over thier heads and food in the cupboards.. at least for a while... but benefits are the last chance saloon when everything else has gone. Not a cash machine of taxes paid in times past or a chance to hang on to that little nest egg until things pick up. It is fair in that everyone IS 'entitled'.. but only once they have nothing else.

Mr_Mumble

Pobby wrote: »

Listening to radio 4 news tonight the worsening unemployment figures were being discussed. They seem to be screwed up somewhat as people are not claiming benefits. This is due to no entitlement. The interview that got me was the guy who had worked for many years and was told that due to his savings he would get nothing and had to live on that.

Yep, for self-employed (class 2 & 4 NICS) its mean-tested but normal employees (class 2) are entitled to non-means tested Job Seekers Allowance.

Benefits have never been there to supplement those with 100k in the bank but have just lost their job, or those with partners who are still working ( on 54k a year ). It may seem unfair, but as with everything, surely you have to draw the line somewhere

With a guaranteed £130pw income and housing benefit (worth say £400pm) the value of staying on the dole until retirement for a single female aged 60.is £192,666*. Is this fair to people who've saved £100K?

*the math (130*52 + 400*12) / 6000 * 100,000 = £192,666
£6000 is currently a very competitive female aged 60, single life, annuity payment.

Shakethedisease

Is this fair to people who've saved £100K?

So someone with 100k in the bank should get housing benefit until 'things pick up' ? While a person ( let's not stereotype ).. who's partner has left them with £0.00 in the bank and a mortgage or rental accomodation they can't pay shouldn't ?

The person most in NEED gets it. That's not fair ?

abinanthanb

IMO the tax collected is just to provide the infrastructure to run a business that pays you. And NI is to provide you the health service.

Benefit is something that the government wants to provide someone who is helpless regardless of if he/she had paid tax before or not. Simple.

bluey890

abinanthanb wrote: »

IMO the tax collected is just to provide the infrastructure to run a business that pays you. And NI is to provide you the health service.

Benefit is something that the government wants to provide someone who is helpless regardless of if he/she had paid tax before or not. Simple.

I thought car/ fuel taxes paid for the health service?

cogito

It might be simple but is it fair?

We all know people who allow every penny they have to slip through their fingers over the bar, for their 20 fags a day and across the bookies counter. They've had the money but thrown it away. They've got nothing and the benefits office throws money at them so they can continue spending at the pub, the fag counter and the bookies.

We also know people who behave responsibly, try to put money aside for retirement and when they find themselves out of work are told by the benefits office to get lost.

The lesson is to be irresponsible. What a message to send out.

Graham_Devon

Shakethedisease wrote: »

So someone with 100k in the bank should get housing benefit until 'things pick up' ? While a person ( let's not stereotype ).. who's partner has left them with £0.00 in the bank and a mortgage or rental accomodation they can't pay shouldn't ?

The person most in NEED gets it. That's not fair ?

Its not as simple as that.

Your need, as your describe it, could be your own fault. If you earn 30k a year, spend 20k of that on the horses, booze and fags, and lose your job, the government will look after you.

If you earn 30k a year, and save as much as possible, and lose your job, the government will say "sorry, you can use your savings".

You get rewarded in this country for being completely reckless. You get punished for trying to look after yourself.

Trouble is, it's making more and more people think "whats the point".