JSA claim - savings over £5500

dmg24

littlemrtinkle wrote: »

I can see how the op gets a bit erked. Rumours are about that there could be redundancys where i work. If you had two people in the same circumstances (been in job same length of time, earn the same, have same number of kids etc) one person is spend spend spend. Other chooses to put some of their income away in savings. Both get laid off at the same time why should the spender be entitled to more money than the saver?

The state would ensure that everybody met the minimum standard of living.

(Cue ceridwen with some random nonsense).

Morgan_Ree

woody01 wrote: »

So let me get this right.........
You want to keep your savings, then want the taxpayer to fund your living expenses.

Why should HONEST (look the word up)taxpayers pay your housing costs etc.

I'm guessing the OP is annoyed at the fact he/she has paid into a system for 30 odd years and gets very little in return when it comes to claiming benefits

Just because they're not a current taxpayer doesn't mean they haven't paid more than enough taxes to expect a little help when times are hard

ceridwen

littlemrtinkle wrote: »

I can see how the op gets a bit erked. Rumours are about that there could be redundancys where i work. If you had two people in the same circumstances (been in job same length of time, earn the same, have same number of kids etc) one person is spend spend spend. Other chooses to put some of their income away in savings. Both get laid off at the same time why should the spender be entitled to more money than the saver?

Precisely.!

I do sometimes wonder why people are penalised like this for having savings. I can understand in the case of people with loadsamoney - but not the "ordinary person in the street".

Maybe its to make us all keep consuming/consuming/consuming ad infinitum - regardless of the environmental costs of that - but just to "keep the wheels of commerce turning". Well - if thats the case - its about time they took account of those of us who dont want to "consume for the sake of it" just because it suits Society (in the short-term only that is).

Maybe its to make sure that we've "flashed all our cash" on plasma tvs/fancy cars/fancy holidays - as a deliberate move to ensure that we dont have any for savings and are thus at the mercy of having to take whatever awful pay/conditions an employer offers because we are too desperate to hold out for a fairer deal. Someone with a bit of savings can turn round and go "take a running jump Mr Potential Employer - as I'm not going to take your job thats some distance away/pays only NMW/is antisocial hours - as I can manage with my savings for a bit longer yet" - whereas their colleague who "flashed the cash" on that fancy plasma tv/etc has to say "Thank goodness Mr Potential Employer - as I was terrified I wouldnt be able to eat next week - I'll take your awful job."

So - I guess thats the answer - bad employers dont want us to be able to reject jobs that are too awful to take and keep searching for a reasonable job.

(cue dmg24 with some more !!!!!iness).

real1314

ceridwen wrote: »

Precisely.!

I do sometimes wonder why people are penalised like this for having savings. I can understand in the case of people with loadsamoney - but not the "ordinary person in the street".

I'd guess it's because you have to draw the line somehwere. For most people "somewhere" is "about 25% more than I expect to ever have", hence everyone disagrees on where it should be.

You also have to bear in mind that some people take home as little as £100 a week, having paid tax. What would they think about someone with £25,000 saved who gets full benefits paid for from their tax on their minimal earnings?
The OP can still get their JSA(c), for 6 months. That's the bit they paid for through NI, although most of their NI went towards their Pension. After that it's basic entitlements.

ceridwen

Hmmm...now sits there thinking "wonder whats the lowest net pay that someone would get if on NMW?". I'm guessing that its around about £12,000 pa?? - which would represent rather more than a takehome pay of £100 per week in fact.

£25,000 is national average salary.

So I think I would probably be thinking along the lines of someone on a good income (ie £35,000 plus per annum then).....

I would be more inclined - as someone who is on a poor salary myself - to think that even other people on a poor salary would be grateful if they had the chance to hold out for a reasonable job because they had a bit of savings giving them the peace of mind that they could eat next week even if they turned down an offer from Mr Unscrupulous Employer.

CCFC_80

littlemrtinkle wrote: »

I can see how the op gets a bit erked. Rumours are about that there could be redundancys where i work. If you had two people in the same circumstances (been in job same length of time, earn the same, have same number of kids etc) one person is spend spend spend. Other chooses to put some of their income away in savings. Both get laid off at the same time why should the spender be entitled to more money than the saver?

Absolutely this government loves to look after the spenders but could not gove a s**t about the people who have worked their a***s off and have saved for their future. The contribution based JSA rule should go back to 12 months as previous before the tory government changed it to six months.

Further edit, the government should be looking at stopping benefit payments to the very rich who can legally claim child benefit and maternity pay

dickydonkin

real1314 has summed up well all of the facts.

What I cannot fathom out is why the OP has only just started to claim JSA after being made redundant in the summer. The only reason I can think of if Payment in Lieu of Notice has been applied.

Many people believe that if they have been paid PILON following redundancy, they cannot claim JSA until the lieu of notice period has expired.

The reality is that lieu of notice payments are now classed as capital and will not affect any immediate claim following redundancy, therefore it is essential to register with Jobseekers as soon as the date of termination of contract is known.

real1314

ceridwen wrote: »

Hmmm...now sits there thinking "wonder whats the lowest net pay that someone would get if on NMW?". I'm guessing that its around about £12,000 pa?? - which would represent rather more than a takehome pay of £100 per week in fact.

£25,000 is national average salary.

So I think I would probably be thinking along the lines of someone on a good income (ie £35,000 plus per annum then).....

I would be more inclined - as someone who is on a poor salary myself - to think that even other people on a poor salary would be grateful if they had the chance to hold out for a reasonable job because they had a bit of savings giving them the peace of mind that they could eat next week even if they turned down an offer from Mr Unscrupulous Employer.

But the man or woman on £100 take home is paying tax. In some cases with no benefits to supplement it.
So, £100 a week paying tax vs £30,000 in the bank and getting support?

ceridwen

dpassmore wrote: »

real1314 has summed up well all of the facts.

What I cannot fathom out is why the OP has only just started to claim JSA after being made redundant in the summer. The only reason I can think of if Payment in Lieu of Notice has been applied.

Many people believe that if they have been paid PILON following redundancy, they cannot claim JSA until the lieu of notice period has expired.

The reality is that lieu of notice payments are now classed as capital and will not affect any immediate claim following redundancy, therefore it is essential to register with Jobseekers as soon as the date of termination of contract is known.

Have you got a link to "chapter and verse" on that on a suitable website for us. Put like that - one is left wondering whether if, for the sake of argument, one had a month notice period and was told not to work it out by the employer whether one would have to put in a claim for JSA immediately and they might try and treat that months salary as savings. It needs to be clear to people that they could use that month (or whatever) of PILON to live on throughout their notice period and that benefit money (and any disqualification on the grounds of having "too much capital") would not start up until the job had officially finished - as the notice period was over.

The way you've put it people might worry that if they received £2,000 salary for instance during their (unworked) notice period that the DWP would go "right - thats £2,000 - you're only allowed another £4,000 of savings before we start penalising you". Whereas - they would be allowed their £2,000 salary to live on during that notice period AND the £6,000 allowable savings.

ceridwen

real1314 wrote: »

But the man or woman on £100 take home is paying tax. In some cases with no benefits to supplement it.
So, £100 a week paying tax vs £30,000 in the bank and getting support?

Well - it certainly needs to be a lot more than £6,000 of savings one is allowed. One unexpected large bill for ones house and - bingo - that could be most of that £6,000 gone in one fell swoop and nothing much left to supplement Dole Money for however long one is on it. On my very simple lifestyle I sat down and worked out what I would have left to live on from Dole Money after paying bills and it would only be £20 per week - and with no allowance built-in at all for inflation. Thats with me having realised years ago that things were going to go the way they are now in Society and planning/cutting/preparing and making sure those bills are as low as they can possibly be - if I hadnt done that I would be lucky if I had 20p a week to live on after them:eek:. So - I can see its necessary for people to use their savings to subsidise inadequate Dole Money if it comes to it - as there is no way anyone could live on that level of money for more than a few weeks - if that. Also - in this day and age - there is no way of knowing how long one might be on the Dole for - it could be months...it could be years...

I honestly think a more realistic figure of allowable savings would be more in the range of £15,000-£20,000 to take the above into account.