Age 7 government child trust fund payments not being released!!!

liam8282

Deepmistrust wrote: »

And as the financial position of both people would not change, can you still explain (as some people seem to think being unemployed would make them better off), why then that unemployment wouldn't become a career choice then in itself, in return of a spot of community service ?

So (in your world where the unemployed are better off) the choice is still:

a. Work and be in poverty
b. Be unemployed and do a bit of charity work, and still be "better off" than an employed worker?

:rotfl:

Again more explanation needed. Is it really that hard for you to understand, or are you just being ignorant for the sake of it?

Currently people are getting benefits for nothing, no matter what.

Workfare could possibly act as some sort of "deterrent" if you will, to those that choose to do nothing and live off benefits.

If a current "non worker", had to do the same hours as a "worker" to receive their benefits, this would add value to benefits as they have to work for them, can you understand that? Or are you just refusing to take it on board?

Percy1983

There should be no exceptions there should be margin between workers and none workers.

Deepmistrust

Percy1983 wrote: »

Quite simply workers should be paid more or less benefits should be paid.

That is the question I asked - so which is it?


As for choice b, I would rather that than them doing the nothing they are now and being rewarded for it.

Job seekers are not necessarily doing nothing. Many are on training, many are already doing volunatary work, and many are in fact attending lots of interviews. So now we've dealt with the falacy could you answer the actual question I highlighted thanks.

Deepmistrust

Percy1983 wrote: »

There should be no exceptions there should be margin between workers and none workers.

It's not mathematically, or scientifically possible to rewrite the laws of probability. Sometimes there ARE exceptions to the rules.

liam8282

Deepmistrust wrote: »

Obviously you missed the bit where I said "and get the benefits you THINK you would get". You wouldn't be better off at all. But it would be funny if you did it. What with you being a hypocrite and all that;)

Hasn't it already been proven that people can be better off not working and claiming the equivalent benefits, or is that something else you refuse to accept?

Even if I was marginally worse off, I wouldn't have to work 35 hours per week for relatively the same standard of living.

Deepmistrust

liam8282 wrote: »

Hasn't it already been proven that people can be better off not working and claiming the equivalent benefits, or is that something else you refuse to accept?

I've already stated that there will of course be exceptions, if you mean that "it has been proven there will always be exceptions" then yes - I have been saying that throughout. It's YOU that seem to think it's the rule rather than the exception.

Even if I was marginally worse off, I would still wouldn't have to work 35 hours per week for relatively the same standard of living.

You already consider £250 per month as "marginally". For people at the low end of the income spectrum (workers or non-workers) £250 per month is more than a marginally difference when it comes to expendable income (income after all rent and childcare has been factored).

LizzieS_2

I've already proved in this demonstration that the worker is several thousand pounds better off working in immediate financial terms alone.
You're continued attempts to deflect from this are pointless - you can use the calculator yourself, using like-for-like scenario. I've given you all details already. You are also ignoring that job seekers also...seek jobs, and have indeed some associated costs such as travel and clothing too? It may or may not be as high as the other scenario, but it's no good ignoring any costs at all as you are doing repeatadly.

I wouldn't call £52pw less the costs of school meals, prescriptions, dental appointments, opticians, travel to work costs a reasonable amount to be "better off" by. I have ignored clothing for both - worker would need more which will balance out the occasional travel costs for seeking work.

Housing benefit isn't means tested also using childmaintenance? Genuine question?

There is absolutely no point to this question. Both could get £1000 per week and still get their incomes. Both would have no change to their HB if they paid child support.

No, not an income at all. A benefit. It's also possible there are no costs.

It is a form of income like council tax - cost to unemployed is nil. Or if you want to be pedantic, it is an expense unique to only the worker.


Lots of workers get free or subsidised health care plans. Not to mention insurance, gym memberships, pensions etc.

We have different opinions there.

The fact remains, that this is only looking at a limited amounts of scenarios, and when the FACTS of the case are actually input into the benefits checker calculator there is no denying that for this case, it is better off no matter now marginally (about £3k in this case, to be in work, than seeking work). And this is just short term benefits.

Your sole interest is the amount is higher, even 1p would suit you. What I have maintained is that this is not an incentive for people to actually work.

Nothing on here changes the original FACT of the matter than the unemployed person still has to budget food, clothing, utilities, (possibly any excess rents or mortgages) out of £65.00. Regardless of whether the worker is better off or not, (in this case the worker is better off), doesn't detract from the fact that there is not much room for luxuries, or living the high life on £65.00 per week.

And if you use the example I did the other day, the worker had even less than the unemployed. There is plenty with £65pw to provide what is needed and some luxury - go ask the career unemployed how they afford so much.

Nor does it negate the fact that attempts to suggest that Job seekers don't seek jobs but do "nothing" (as one less-enlightened person on here put it), and that by definition all job-seekers must therefore be layabouts.

I'm dealing with the career unemployed first.

You also attempted earlier to suggest that (ex-tax-paying) unemployed should get 'more'. Seeing as you are (in this virtual scenario) already attempting to slash the current rate, I'm assuming that in your world they wouldn't even receive £65 per week, so back to the original question, how would you expect a job seeker to meet essential living costs, whilst job seeking on much less than £65 per week? And define "slash"?


Yes I do believe there should be more than 1 benefit system - pointless going into this at the moment. I have answered your question before - they should do workfare for their benefits (still on career claimants here). The career ones already show there is little incentive to work, so the 18K which you prefer to state as £65pw is too high.

Deepmistrust

LizzieS wrote: »

I've already proved in this demonstration that the worker is several thousand pounds better off working in immediate financial terms alone.
You're continued attempts to deflect from this are pointless - you can use the calculator yourself, using like-for-like scenario. I've given you all details already. You are also ignoring that job seekers also...seek jobs, and have indeed some associated costs such as travel and clothing too? It may or may not be as high as the other scenario, but it's no good ignoring any costs at all as you are doing repeatadly.

I wouldn't call £52pw less the costs of school meals, prescriptions, dental appointments, opticians, travel to work costs a reasonable amount to be "better off" by. I have ignored clothing for both - worker would need more which will balance out the occasional travel costs for seeking work.

3000/52 = £58.00 (rounded) If you want to be pedantic

Why would a worker need more clothing? Or are you going to say that unemployed people sit around in their undies all day now? They'll need different types of clothing, but as far as I am aware, most people actually do only don one layer of clothing per day.
School dinners per day (approx £2.00) = £10.00 per week.
Both people will have travel costs, in fact if the worker is using a travel card, probably gets discounted as opposed to the non-worker who will probably pay for his travel to interviews as an when by full priced travel cards.

Housing benefit isn't means tested also using childmaintenance? Genuine question?

There is absolutely no point to this question. Both could get £1000 per week and still get their incomes. Both would have no change to their HB if they paid child support.

OK. Thanks. So child maintenace will make no difference to either person in this scenario.

No, not an income at all. A benefit. It's also possible there are no costs.


It is a form of income like council tax - cost to unemployed is nil. Or if you want to be pedantic, it is an expense unique to only the worker.


Lots of workers get free or subsidised health care plans. Not to mention insurance, gym memberships, pensions etc.

We have different opinions there.

That's not an opinion, i've posted a fact. Many employees actually DO get those benefits alongside their employment. Depending who they work for they may also receive others i.e. a supermarket employee may receive 10% of their week shop etc.

The fact remains, that this is only looking at a limited amounts of scenarios, and when the FACTS of the case are actually input into the benefits checker calculator there is no denying that for this case, it is better off no matter now marginally (about £3k in this case, to be in work, than seeking work). And this is just short term benefits.

Your sole interest is the amount is higher, even 1p would suit you. What I have maintained is that this is not an incentive for people to actually work.

1p and £3000 are significantly different amounts. Nice try though.

Nothing on here changes the original FACT of the matter than the unemployed person still has to budget food, clothing, utilities, (possibly any excess rents or mortgages) out of £65.00. Regardless of whether the worker is better off or not, (in this case the worker is better off), doesn't detract from the fact that there is not much room for luxuries, or living the high life on £65.00 per week.

And if you use the example I did the other day, the worker had even less than the unemployed. There is plenty with £65pw to provide what is needed and some luxury - go ask the career unemployed how they afford so much.
Which example?

Nor does it negate the fact that attempts to suggest that Job seekers don't seek jobs but do "nothing" (as one less-enlightened person on here put it), and that by definition all job-seekers must therefore be layabouts.

I'm dealing with the career unemployed first.

Ah, a minority that everyone can't see to get passed. I'm refering to job seekers. i.e. people who will also be affected by hair-brain schemes.

You also attempted earlier to suggest that (ex-tax-paying) unemployed should get 'more'. Seeing as you are (in this virtual scenario) already attempting to slash the current rate, I'm assuming that in your world they wouldn't even receive £65 per week, so back to the original question, how would you expect a job seeker to meet essential living costs, whilst job seeking on much less than £65 per week? And define "slash"?


Yes I do believe there should be more than 1 benefit system - There is, non-job seekers don't get JSA. Those that can't or don't have to - seek work, are on IS. pointless going into this at the moment. I have answered your question before - they should do workfare for their benefits (still on career claimants here). The career ones already show there is little incentive to work, so the 18K which you prefer to state as £65pw is too high.

How does putting people into community service increase their incentive to work - if - as you claim they are still better off financially on unemployment benefits? And would they now be eligible for childcare if they are doing "community service" ?

LizzieS_2

Deepmistrust wrote: »

Again, wittering on about a minority who have never worked. You do understand that what happens to JSA is going to affect ALL unemployed people?

Now as already proven, there is little gain or indeed a loss by actually working instead of claiming everything.

Now look at how many are joining the unemployed now - it does not take a genius to work out that some of them will find a new career out of being unemployed, ie there is little incentive to work.

You have to first solve why the career claimants have enough to live on. Remember too that there are generations of families who have not worked. Once you solve this, you can then work out a better way forward - something everyone but yourself has made efforts to do.

Deepmistrust

LizzieS wrote: »

Now as already proven, there is little gain or indeed a loss by actually working instead of claiming everything.

No it hasn't. (Exception rule aside), you haven't shown this. You claim to somewhere - but I haven't even had the opportunity to see this, as you have not (despite my request) shown where you have supposedly 'proved' this to be the rule.

The only example of such evidence is the one posted here by Killmark, where I have shown that the worker is better off in the hand by £250 per month. Given that the worker is also a lone parent paying high rents, it's unsurprising to discover that it's not a vast difference, but a significant difference none the less. I for one, know that £250 per month would significantly improve the living standards of many people at the lower end of the income (worker or non worker) spectrum.

Now look at how many are joining the unemployed now - it does not take a genius to work out that some of them will find a new career out of being unemployed, ie there is little incentive to work.

Wow, just wow. So an almighty recession which has caused many people to lose their incomes, jobs, and even homes, now those people are career dolites, who should be sent straight out in a high-vis vest - not for the benefit of other workers of course - but just so we can smuggly know that we are keeping them busy?


You have to first solve why the career claimants have enough to live on. Remember too that there are generations of families who have not worked. Once you solve this, you can then work out a better way forward - something everyone but yourself has made efforts to do.

Again your obsession with a minority of layabouts is becoming tedious and predictable. Why not, for a change concentrate on the teeny matter that hundreds of thousands of people have recently lost jobs, and need some financial assistance whilst they job seek?

Go on, go wild with it.

Here's another idea, ditch the Daily Mail. Those "outrage" stories and meaningless headlines like "generations of familes unemployed" do not, actually mean very much.