redundent soon what can i do

StevieJ

Stochasticity wrote: »

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.

No he isn't

Contribution-based Jobseeker's Allowance is not affected by any savings you have. However, if you have part-time earnings or an occupational or personal pension, this may affect how much contribution-based JSA you get. For example, the amount of contribution-based JSA that you get is cut pound for pound for any occupational pension that is over £50 a week. If you earn too much, you will not get contribution-based Jobseeker's Allowance at all.

StevieJ

bendix wrote: »

Which, in itself, is a national disgrace and symptomatic of the type of welfare profligacy that has got this country into both a financial and moral mess.

Except it is not true

yorkiebar

bendix - if you ever had children would you claim for any child benefit payments ? From your stance I guess you wouldn't.

Eco_Miser

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

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 so-so job. I had a good job.
You earned £0.2 million in your 40 years work. I earned £1.2 million.
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 adequate house. I bought a nicer one.
You get no 'means tested' benefits at age 65. I get loads!

That's unfairness.

Changed a few words in that quote, to more closely reflect my circumstances.
I agree there should be few Means-Tested benefits, as they discourage thrift and encourage live now, let someone else pay later.

Loughton_Monkey

Eco_Miser wrote: »

Changed a few words in that quote, to more closely reflect my circumstances.
I agree there should be few Means-Tested benefits, as they discourage thrift and encourage live now, let someone else pay later.

Yes, I'm afraid that 'Society' [if there is such a thing - God Bless Margaret Thatcher!] is very much conditioned by the Government over years and generations. I'm all for a safety net, but when the value of that safety net can be much higher than average wages, it screams that something is wrong.