going abroad and signing on question

dickydonkin

FBaby wrote: »

Your link between child benefits and JSA doesn't make sense. To qualify for CB, you need to have children, that's all. The assumption is that the money will be spent on the kids. Even if a family earn £100K, they can spend the money on the essential need of the child, it means that either they will spend the extra money they make on themselves, or choose to provide more for their children. Going abroad without the children makes no difference, they don't become childless because they are away.

To quality for JSA, you have to be looking for and be available to start a job. Those are the conditions. If you are abroad, you can't start a new job end of it. As for those going on holiday during that time, that is their business how they are funding it, but it is indeed absolutely right that they should not receive JSA for that period.

The assumption is that the money will be spent on the kids. Even if a family earn £100K, they can spend the money on the essential need of the child, it means that either they will spend the extra money they make on themselves, or choose to provide more for their children. Going abroad without the children makes no difference, they don't become childless because they are away.

And going abroad on holiday when unemployed makes no difference either because (using your analogy) they are still unemployed when they are away!

I used the child benefit as an example -probably not the best one as the benefit is 'supposed' to be for the childs needs and of couse, all parents always use this money for their kids.:rotfl:

Using your methodology to substantiate your argument - what about housing benefits and benefits received by disabled people which is rightly paid and they are fully entitled to?

They still receive their benefits when they are abroad for a short holiday beause despite being away from UK shores, they are still disabled and people still have houses - but they still get paid these benefits unlike jobseekers.

In your post, you stated that even if a couples income is in the region of £100.000pa - they are still entitled to child benefit.

In my opinion, that is more of an injustice that banning JSA when abroad - although that argument is for another day.

If such affluent families do need such a benefit then many could suggest that they are living above their already considerable means!

bendix

dickydonkin wrote: »

So please clarify or rectify your earlier post which suggests that you don't need any benefits if you can afford to travel overseas (your words - not mine) - or were you just referring to unemployed people (such as the OP) receiving JSA? And should all of those people who receive benefits of any kind relinquish their entitlement if they do travel outside of the UK.

Good point. For a moment I got all wishy-washy and liberal. My fault entirely; it was in the afternoon and I was full of the milk of human kindness.

No . . if you can afford to go overseas you don't need benefits.

elvis86

lexilex wrote: »

On the other hand, I have a friend who left school at 16, popped two kids out and has never worked a day in her life and has no intention of doing so, as soon as her youngest is old enough to start school she will have another. She is going on a two week holiday this summer with her children, probably costing three or four times more than my holiday.

Posts like this always make me laugh. If you disagree with the way this woman lives her life, why the hell are you friends with her?! And more to the point, how can you stand being friends with her?

People go on and on about benefit recipeints being blasted, and I see people explaining how little they actually recieve etc, and I feel sorry for them as it sounds impossible to live on. And yet, I encounter many families where nobody works (through my job), and many of them somehow afford to have the 42" plasmas, the £100 tracksuits, 20 fags a day etc??

I can only assume that it is the kids who are the real money spinners. Life as a single, childless person on benefits may be pretty miserable, but introduce a couple of kids into the equation and you seemingly rake it in.:cool:

I hate to jump on any kind of populist bandwagon full of Sun and Daily Mail readers, but it is an issue that I find it hard not to get wound up about.:mad:

RE the OP, as others have said, there may be a perfectly decent explanation for someone on JSA taking a holiday. I have a holiday booked for 4 weeks time. If I lost my job tomorrow I'd sign on, but I'd still take my holiday.;)

relic

elvis86 wrote: »

Posts like this always make me laugh. If you disagree with the way this woman lives her life, why the hell are you friends with her?! And more to the point, how can you stand being friends with her?

People go on and on about benefit recipeints being blasted, and I see people explaining how little they actually recieve etc, and I feel sorry for them as it sounds impossible to live on. And yet, I encounter many families where nobody works (through my job), and many of them somehow afford to have the 42" plasmas, the £100 tracksuits, 20 fags a day etc??

I can only assume that it is the kids who are the real money spinners. Life as a single, childless person on benefits may be pretty miserable, but introduce a couple of kids into the equation and you seemingly rake it in.:cool:

I hate to jump on any kind of populist bandwagon full of Sun and Daily Mail readers, but it is an issue that I find it hard not to get wound up about.:mad:

RE the OP, as others have said, there may be a perfectly decent explanation for someone on JSA taking a holiday. I have a holiday booked for 4 weeks time. If I lost my job tomorrow I'd sign on, but I'd still take my holiday.;)

As a single person, I received no benefits whilst working full time in a low paid job (I could have claimed for about £7 a week WTC but never did).

Now me and my partner are having our first child, my main priority was to make sure the baby had everything it needed. I sat down with a local benefits advisor, who showed me a few situations. Basically carry on working full time as I do now, I receive £8000 in my first year in benefits (WTC, CB, HB, CTB). I thought that was a ridiculous amount, it was near enough doubling what I get paid after tax. She then showed me a situation that if I decided to help take care of the child (with my partner also being out of work) and dropped down to 3 days a week, i'd actually be coming out with pretty much exactly the same amount of money at the end of the month, with all benefits being bumped up.

Before all this I wondered how when I sat on my bus journey home from work, all these people with kids and no jobs could afford fancy phones and so on, now I know exactly why, they aren't working and earning the same if not more than me.

dickydonkin

People go on and on about benefit recipeints being blasted, and I see people explaining how little they actually recieve etc, and I feel sorry for them as it sounds impossible to live on. And yet, I encounter many families where nobody works (through my job), and many of them somehow afford to have the 42" plasmas, the £100 tracksuits, 20 fags a day etc??

Totally agree - and I gave a perfect example when I referred to a relative. Where there is a benefit system - there will always be those who will attempt to exploit it. The system is wrong where there is no incentive to come off certain benefits when you receive more than actually working.

As I explained earlier, I was made redundant in 2007 at 50 years of age and my wife (who worker for the same company) was also made redundant at the same time.

We had both never been out of work since we left school and had never claimed benefit (other than child benefit - or family allowance I think it was referred to the time) and it was very difficult for both of us to adjust to such a situation - although after time we both got jobs but the experience of being out of work and worse still - having to 'sign on' came as quite a shock to us. We persevered as we both believed we should receive what we were entitled to - albeit for 6 months.

We believed that the jobcentreplus (as the name implies) would assist in getting us a job - unfortunately, we both found them absolutely useless and they just seemed to go through the motions as opposed to finding employment.

Having seen some of the low lifes in that jobcentre really opened up my eyes - but again, there were obviously lots more people who seemed decent and very likely in the same situation as my wife and I.

The one defining moment for me when I attended the jobcentre was of a very young teenage mother with three screaming kids in tow waiting for some kind of interview. The kids were screaming, she was effing and blinding at the kids - one of the kids was effing and blinding at her and I thought please get me out of here. This was one experience, but there were others.

I will never ever forget that jobcentre 'experience' as long as I live. It was (for me anyway) humiliating and once I realised I had enough pension credits, I stopped going - something (if I had known) I could have done some time earlier as the threshold for pension credits had been amended.

I apologise for the life story - but as you will note from my posts, I do get annoyed when unemployed people are categorised as scroungers, 'doleys' (a nice term of endearment used by one poster) and are all tarred with the same brush.

Perhaps before my redundancy - I too may have thought the same, but having experienced it - I would not wish unemployment on my worst enemy.

So for those who stereotype all unemployed people - please don't - the vast majority are in such a situation not out of their own choice.

Strider590

WPN wrote: »

Read the Jobseekers Act 1995... Section 1 (2)(i) reads "[Subject to the provisions of this Act, a claimant is entitled to a jobseeker’s allowance if he–] is in Great Britain."

All you need to do is sign off before you go and ring up to make a rapid reclaim when you get back - takes approx 20 minutes from picking up phone to hanging up.

Now to throw the cat amongst the pigeons.....

Why can immigrants from eastern Europe (or wherever), come work here and get child benefits for children they have living in another country? THEN when they go back home they can STILL get those benefits for those children!?!?

Yet if a Brit leaves the country whilst on JSA, he/she gets !!!!!! all over by the system????

Nothing against other nationalities, but what the hell is going on with "the system"?

FBaby

dickydonkin wrote: »

And going abroad on holiday when unemployed makes no difference either because (using your analogy) they are still unemployed when they are away!

But that's where you are confused, you are getting JSA not because you are unemployed but because you are looking for a job.

dickydonkin

Strider590 wrote: »

Now to throw the cat amongst the pigeons.....

Why can immigrants from eastern Europe (or wherever), come work here and get child benefits for children they have living in another country? THEN when they go back home they can STILL get those benefits for those children!?!?

Yet if a Brit leaves the country whilst on JSA, he/she gets !!!!!! all over by the system????

Nothing against other nationalities, but what the hell is going on with "the system"?

Head down Strider and await incoming flak.

But you raise a valid point.

If there is a benefit 'system' in place then I would have thought that the requirements for claiming should be consistent and equal -irrespective of nationality.

But, as I alluded to earlier, it could be argued that the system is broke and provided that everyone meets defined criteria for claiming, then payments should be paid.

Unfortunately in the situations you have highlighted, It could be perceived by many that some claimants are more equal than others.

Your_Silent_Face

So, red devil, does all of that answer your question? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Strider590

dickydonkin wrote: »

Head down Strider and await incoming flak.

Nothing that can't solved with a large headsized bucket of sand. Works for everyone else :rotfl: