redundent soon what can i do

mystic_trev

gamston wrote: »

£30k would be ok for me & Mrs, but with 2 at uni and 1 in senior school
with all the new uni costs, i'll need that and more.

In a previous posting you say.

i would expect a redundance of £60k

You can pay an awful lot of Uni costs with that!

Eco_Miser

gamston wrote: »

don't you think i've worked for what i've got,
had nothing given to me,
i had to work and study hard to get where i am.

And now you are about to retire 10 years early, on rather more than average income. Enjoy it!

I was made redundant aged 58. I didn't even bother claiming the only benefit I was entitled to, contribution-based JSA for 6 months - too much hassle. I declared myself retired and got on with life. [That's not a formal declaration you need to make BTW, just a change of mind-set]

gamston wrote: »

i've saved to support my kids the best i can, that's why i try to support them though uni, its just the way i've lived this life

but you just said you had nothing given to you. You did it unaided, let your children do the same.
But really, with an income of £30k I can't see why you can't support your children, AND yourself and your wife, without a p/t job.

I just have to support myself, but I'm doing it on a ninth of your income, and I find time, not money is the limiting resource.

As for losing out because you saved, yes, you will; you had a choice, spend it all then live a miserable old age at the taxpayer's expense, or save some of it, and enjoy retirement. You'll still get around £5k basic pension when you're old enough, in addition to your £30k. You only miss out on the poverty relief payments.

Stochasticity

Regardless of your personal opinion on what the welfare state is or is not about, if gamston is not working and genuinely wants and is actively looking to find another job, he's fully entitled to up to six months' worth of contribution-based Jobseeker's Allowance (at £65.45 per week given full National Insurance contributions) regardless of the level of his income from other sources (e.g. pension) and his existing savings.

mike88

Where are your kids going to University? What year are they in? For the remaining child I would suggest you insist he/she goes somewhere near to home so you won't be saddled supporting their rent and other accommodation costs. You should explain that you have been made unexpectedly redundant and you can no longer afford to support him/her in the manner originally anticipated. It is of course better for them to go away but needs must!

Alternatively, consider buying a property for him/her to live in and maybe get one now so the other two can move in. That's what I did. When I came to sell after 7 years I sold the property for nearly twice its purchase price and collected around £38000 in rent net. The only real hassle is filling out a tax form each year. The kids can collect the rent from other housemates (which should more than offset mortgage and other costs) and it also gives the kids a lesson in behaving responsibly. Given current depressed property prices, you might find in 3 to 4 years time you will be able to sell at a profit. Many people do this with no problem but much of course depends where the University is located and property prices.

Stochasticity

Where do you suppose the entitlement to the welfare in this case is derived?

The answer of course is from the National Insurance contributions (read taxes) that gamston himself has paid over the years of his employment.

If he hadn't paid the necessary NICs over the years (e.g. had he been self-employed) then he wouldn't be entitled to the very same contribution-based Jobseekers' Allowance.

Of course, the contributory principle and the hypothecation of NICs have always been more concept than reality but do you really want to take the position that all taxation need necessarily be redistributive?

Even if you do want to take that position, it's also hardly gamston's fault that the system isn't configured to your liking.

Stochasticity

It's also not a question of deserving, it's about his legal entitlement under the current system as it exists.

Welfare should be about NEED, not some god-given right that you can just draw upon simply because you've contributed.

Perhaps it should be, but the right that gamston has isn't God-given. Unless you class Beveridge as God.

Otherwise, where do you draw the line? Benefits for millionaires? As a relatively high wage earner, I regularly pay more NI contributions than everyone else - should I therefore get higher benefits based on my contribution.

The contribution-based Jobseeker's Allowance is capped at £65.35 a week, so beyond a certain point, no, you can't get more out just because you've paid more in.

Welfare is welfare. Based on needs, not contributions.

Unfortunately that's not the way that the current system operates.

I too would prefer them to give up the pretence that National Insurance is anything other than extra income tax, ditch the contributory principle and move towards a system based more on genuine needs.

But if gamston's genuinely wants to find another job, then he's entitled under the current system to claim up to six months' contribution-based Jobseeker's Allowance while doing so and I don't expect him to forgo his right to do that just because you don't think he really needs it.

Blobby8_2

I'll bet (like me) if Gamston goes to the job centre he will likely not bother claiming his entitlement.
£65 JSA is taxable therefore only really worth £52 to a basic rate taxpayer. And he has sufficient capital & income to live very well.
I didnt find that meeting with the dregs of society(some JC staff), many of whom are incapable of any job in the real world very fullfilling.
Standing around with chavtastic lifers awaiting my fortnightly grilling is also not high on my list.

Eco_Miser

Welfare should be about NEED, not some god-given right that you can just draw upon simply because you've contributed.[/QUOTE]
This isn't welfare this is insurance, or so it is called. The insured event is being unemployed, not being poverty stricken. After six months, that's welfare. (Horrible American term)

bendix wrote: »

Otherwise, where do you draw the line? Benefits for millionaires?

Why not? They've paid their money, lots of it.

plodder73

I am in a similar (but worse) position to the OP. £24k a year pension, child at uni to whom I give £400 a month. Not much savings and have never even considered any benefits and I manage to live very comfortably thanks very much. So what the hell do you do with your £2200-£2400 a month, (rough guess based on my pension) and the interest on £150k.

Loughton_Monkey

Eco_Miser wrote: »

This isn't welfare this is insurance, or so it is called. The insured event is being unemployed, not being poverty stricken. After six months, that's welfare. (Horrible American term).

Well it's called Insurance, but actually it is not. There is no 'contract'. Nor is it paid just because you lose your job. You have to be actively seeking another to become eligible.

It is a payment, under current rules, that is dependent upon a certain level of NI contributions having been paid. With due legislation, the job seekers allowance could be increased, decreased, or abolished tomorrow.

But, like State Pension, it is a payment made to all qualifying people irrespective of 'need'.

Personally, I would prefer a system that is more like 'Insurance', with properly calculated 'premiums'. It would help make the system far fairer all round. One of the major sources of unfairness is so-called 'Means Testing'. What I mean by this is:

You had a good job. I had a good job.
You earned £1.2 million in your 40 years work. So did I.
You paid into a pension. I didn't.
You saved money. I didn't. I had a 'good time' and spent it all.
You bought a nice house. I bought a nicer one.
You get no 'means tested' benefits at age 65. I get loads!

That's unfairness.