We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Not entitled to JSA - I was a carer
Comments
-
Oldernotwiser wrote: »It might be £180, i don't think they know themselves.
It obviously isn't true that "everyone will HAVE to take out a private pension" as this won't apply to people on benefits.
Another good reason for NOT going on them. The cons are certainly winning in the round of benefit claiming! The pros are lagging behind by a clear mile!
I could never understand how people can or would want to live a life within the benefit system.
Being self reliant even in the worst possible situation is far better than being at the mercy of the government dishing out the taxpayers money. There will come a time....there will come a time....0 -
This is like me saying that as a single mum, I could have been entitled to all single parent's benefits for 7 years, but because I worked I saved the governement 100s of thousands. It doesn't work like that, it is not a saving to the government if you are doing something you should be doing anyway, but the government will provide support if you are trully in a position not being able to do so. You were, therefore it wasn't a saving for the government.
It is a choice to become a parent. It is not a choice to be disabled or a carer so i dont see how you can compare the two.0 -
No, our children have discussed it between them and their respective partners.
Daughter doesn't work - not since she had her children, has no intention of going back to work either. Her husband supports the family. The right way to do it in my opinion.
Not every family has both out working. Since when has it become the norm for both to work full time?
What about the children?
What if your daughter's husband was suddenly unable to work and needed her to care for him? How would her she and her children be supported then?0 -
Oldernotwiser wrote: »It might be £180, i don't think they know themselves.
It obviously isn't true that "everyone will HAVE to take out a private pension" as this won't apply to people on benefits.
Sigh.
I did, in the original post you took exception to, say "in full-time work". The point is that those who work WILL get more pension than those who don't in future years. So whateverhisnameisitandyagain's point about the pointlessness of work because you won't get any extra pension is erroneous from this point (well, 2012-2017) onwards. And his further odd post about SERPS and State Second Pension is also erroneous. What's coming is compulsion to join a private pension, not a secondary, earnings-related state pension. And compulsion for employers to contribute towards it. As I said earlier, by 2017 that will be 4% (employee) and 3% (employer).0 -
-
Sigh.
I did, in the original post you took exception to, say "in full-time work". The point is that those who work WILL get more pension than those who don't in future years. So whateverhisnameisitandyagain's point about the pointlessness of work because you won't get any extra pension is erroneous from this point (well, 2012-2017) onwards. And his further odd post about SERPS and State Second Pension is also erroneous. What's coming is compulsion to join a private pension, not a secondary, earnings-related state pension. And compulsion for employers to contribute towards it. As I said earlier, by 2017 that will be 4% (employee) and 3% (employer).
You may have thought that was what you said, but actually you said
"But going forwards, everyone will be forced to have a private pension and every employer will have to contribute (well, if you're full-time) - so this isn't an issue for anyone from now on."
Anyway, we all seem to have taken this way OT!0 -
It is a choice to become a parent. It is not a choice to be disabled or a carer so i dont see how you can compare the two.
But it's a choice whether you expect the Taxpayers to pay you a benefit!
You don't have to claim them, they aren't compulsory.
Many don't claim what they are entitled to for various reasons, one being that they do not want to get involved the the ups and downs created by the government whenever there is a change in the law etc.
They prefer to be independent even though they, in most people's eyes, are missing out on a cash payment.
The vast majority of those that opt out of the benefit culture are Old Age Pensioners just like us.0 -
What if your daughter's husband was suddenly unable to work and needed her to care for him? How would her she and her children be supported then?
It's called 'Income Replacement' an insurance policy that you can buy! All (if they have any sense) would have this type of policy to cover such eventualities.
In my daughter's case, his practice will still continue to pay his salary - even if he didn't work.0 -
you have the right name smug.
I work weekends to fit in with shifts hubby does...................and damn I hate them weekends, but need the money, am with inlaws most of week(school hours, me and hubby are older parents, decided to work rather that procreate)...........so tell gov to pay me.
probably already mentioned but you have your weekend wage and also your husband wage coming in.0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.5K Spending & Discounts
- 247.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.5K Life & Family
- 261.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards