Work for benefits

vivatifosi

lisyloo wrote: »

My partner has been out of work for 8 months (and looking hard every day). He has an offer currently and is waiting to start.
He's quite high in his career e.g. managing director/CEO level and there are fewer jobs the higher you get.

He might fall into this category.
What would you rather he does?

I sympathise. I've met a few guys in your partner's situation at the library where I used to work. They would come in for several hours a day to consult with info on CVs, look at job sites, find out about local businesses networks. Speaking to several, they felt that the whole Job Centre network was aimed at getting a different type of customer into work. The Job Centre seemed to struggle with career advice for high flyers.

Also, part way through year or with a working partner, they find they can't claim anyway. The most help they get is with NI.

I feel that the JC network fails this type of person and that the proposed legislation change is not aimed at your partner. None of which makes this any better if he gets caught up in it.

J_i_m

lisyloo wrote: »

Would you rather lose those skills and have him tidy up the park.

Thinking slightly more practically and realistically you might find that even if he went for these menial jobs that he'd get rejected anyway on the grounds of being "over qualified".

The job market is brutal from top to bottom, seriously. I once got rejected for a checkout and shelf stacking job at Tesco because they felt that by "the strength" of my CV, I wouldn't be hanging around for long. At the time my CV consisted of a standard set of GCSEs and a single A level which I only passed by the skin of my teeth and yet they decided that I was over qualified to stack shelves and left me (at the time of story) floundering on the unemployment list as a result.

CLAPTON

vivatifosi wrote: »

I sympathise. I've met a few guys in your partner's situation at the library where I used to work. They would come in for several hours a day to consult with info on CVs, look at job sites, find out about local businesses networks. Speaking to several, they felt that the whole Job Centre network was aimed at getting a different type of customer into work. The Job Centre seemed to struggle with career advice for high flyers.

Also, part way through year or with a working partner, they find they can't claim anyway. The most help they get is with NI.

I feel that the JC network fails this type of person and that the proposed legislation change is not aimed at your partner. None of which makes this any better if he gets caught up in it.

whilst one does of course have sympathy for individual cases, clearly people at CEO level know it takes a long time to get re-employed and should have made suitable provision.
At CEO level they would have been well paid and should have made their own insurance provision or saving provision.

The state system shouldn't be expected to make provision for the individual preferences of every individual but provide a safety net for the 'average'.

It is the entitlement culture done mad.

markharding557

I think it is wrong to say those in well paid employment should not qualify for JSA on account of earnings.
They will have paid in much more than they will take out.

J_i_m

CLAPTON wrote: »

It is the entitlement culture done mad.

I think that is a very easy and comfortable phrase to say, and I think it is bandied around these forums too readily.

I also think those who say it are perhaps speaking from a narrow perspective.

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

whilst one does of course have sympathy for individual cases, clearly people at CEO level know it takes a long time to get re-employed and should have made suitable provision.
At CEO level they would have been well paid and should have made their own insurance provision or saving provision.

The state system shouldn't be expected to make provision for the individual preferences of every individual but provide a safety net for the 'average'.

It is the entitlement culture done mad.

Why do they need to make provision?

Surely we need them to consume to allow trickle down to work?

A well paid employee who gets a severance package would usually only get a maximum 6 months JSA if they have other assets.. Depending on when they get binned would probably have to pay tax at their highest rate on the JSA received.

chewmylegoff

vivatifosi wrote: »

I sympathise. I've met a few guys in your partner's situation at the library where I used to work. They would come in for several hours a day to consult with info on CVs, look at job sites, find out about local businesses networks. Speaking to several, they felt that the whole Job Centre network was aimed at getting a different type of customer into work. The Job Centre seemed to struggle with career advice for high flyers.

Also, part way through year or with a working partner, they find they can't claim anyway. The most help they get is with NI.

I feel that the JC network fails this type of person and that the proposed legislation change is not aimed at your partner. None of which makes this any better if he gets caught up in it.

I don't think the JC network fails this type of person so much as it is just completely out of scope; it just isn't the government's job to provide assistance and advice to people wanting to get a high flying job. There are plenty of recruitment consultants and "executive headhunters" who can help you with this. If you can't get a job at this level yourself it is hardly likely that the government can do much to help you. It would be a waste of public funds if the government set up a network of 'enhanced' job centres designed to help out the top <1% get the very best jobs.

If people can't get jobs at that level them of course they should have access to the same level as support as anyone else but that should be be the assistance to get a job, any job, not the job they want. If they don't want to take it that's their prerogative but if they have their own funds then they shouldn't receive any government hand outs. If they qualify for benefits as a result of their financial position then fine.

Loughton_Monkey

CLAPTON wrote: »

whilst one does of course have sympathy for individual cases, clearly people at CEO level know it takes a long time to get re-employed and should have made suitable provision.

At CEO level they would have been well paid and should have made their own insurance provision or saving provision.

The state system shouldn't be expected to make provision for the individual preferences of every individual but provide a safety net for the 'average'.

It is the entitlement culture done mad.

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Why do they need to make provision?

Surely we need them to consume to allow trickle down to work?

A well paid employee who gets a severance package would usually only get a maximum 6 months JSA if they have other assets.. Depending on when they get binned would probably have to pay tax at their highest rate on the JSA received.

Yes, I must go with Clapton on this one.

I have been in this position a couple of times. For a start, I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone who hasn't saved a bit for eventualities like this. Especially at the higher salary end. Secondly, a large brown envelope (a lot of it tax free) is usually available.

The higher you are, the more it can take to get the right job, even if it takes a year or so. It's not worth claiming JSA. I did once, a long time ago (in the 80's), just so that my 'stamp' was paid. But on every fortnightly visit, I lit up a cigar while walking back to my BMW, reflecting on the fact that I spent more on cigars than the benefit I was receiving.

But your consumption thing, Grizzly, is probably a bit off the mark. At the micro level, it's wrong because most people have 40 years of active work/income, followed by 25/30 years of State Pension. It is just lunacy not to 'save' 20% or so. Some in pension. Some not.

At the macro level, your consumption issue is fallacious. Ultimately all wealth is "consumed". It's just a matter of timing. In my own case, for example, I committed the 'sin' of not consuming around 25% of earnings. After 34 years, I had more than enough to see me out for another 35 years of consuming without earning another penny [investment income/State pension apart]. That's what I am doing.

Just think it through. Imagine a hypothetical situation in which 100% of the population believed the world was going to end in 2 years time. So spend, spend, spend and enjoy your last 2 years on earth. By George, we'de see GDP go through the roof. Have a whale of a time. All economical indicators would show a red hot economy. Then what would happen 2 years on when it was a false alarm. It would be a financial apocalypse that would make the word "depression" feel like affluence.

vivatifosi

chewmylegoff wrote: »

I don't think the JC network fails this type of person so much as it is just completely out of scope; it just isn't the government's job to provide assistance and advice to people wanting to get a high flying job. There are plenty of recruitment consultants and "executive headhunters" who can help you with this. If you can't get a job at this level yourself it is hardly likely that the government can do much to help you. It would be a waste of public funds if the government set up a network of 'enhanced' job centres designed to help out the top <1% get the very best jobs.

If people can't get jobs at that level them of course they should have access to the same level as support as anyone else but that should be be the assistance to get a job, any job, not the job they want. If they don't want to take it that's their prerogative but if they have their own funds then they shouldn't receive any government hand outs. If they qualify for benefits as a result of their financial position then fine.

I agree with that. The question is, if people are going in purely for a top up for their stamp (per Loughton's example), because of the way things are structured, will they then end up in a back to work scheme with people with low skills? I'd argue they'd be better off (and a greater asset to society long term) if they work hard at finding their next job so that they can go back to paying 40% tax. Equally I don't see an issue with their proving that's what they are doing.

NI is the big issue here. I had the same problem when I was ill. I couldn't work but fell foul of all of the checks and balances. It is easy to burn through fairly substantial savings very quickly when you are not well, particularly if you have a combination of no income coupled with the need to spend some money on medical treatment (I had to get the USA to do my diagnosis as there was nobody here capable of doing it, it took several months going to the top of the NHS in the UK before I found that out).

Equally it annoys me when people take the p*ss, which is why this measure is being introduced in the first place. It's just a matter of getting the balances right.

grizzly1911

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Yes, I must go with Clapton on this one.

I have been in this position a couple of times. For a start, I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone who hasn't saved a bit for eventualities like this. Especially at the higher salary end. Secondly, a large brown envelope (a lot of it tax free) is usually available.

The higher you are, the more it can take to get the right job, even if it takes a year or so. It's not worth claiming JSA. I did once, a long time ago (in the 80's), just so that my 'stamp' was paid. But on every fortnightly visit, I lit up a cigar while walking back to my BMW, reflecting on the fact that I spent more on cigars than the benefit I was receiving.

But your consumption thing, Grizzly, is probably a bit off the mark. At the micro level, it's wrong because most people have 40 years of active work/income, followed by 25/30 years of State Pension. It is just lunacy not to 'save' 20% or so. Some in pension. Some not.

At the macro level, your consumption issue is fallacious. Ultimately all wealth is "consumed". It's just a matter of timing. In my own case, for example, I committed the 'sin' of not consuming around 25% of earnings. After 34 years, I had more than enough to see me out for another 35 years of consuming without earning another penny [investment income/State pension apart]. That's what I am doing.

Just think it through. Imagine a hypothetical situation in which 100% of the population believed the world was going to end in 2 years time. So spend, spend, spend and enjoy your last 2 years on earth. By George, we'de see GDP go through the roof. Have a whale of a time. All economical indicators would show a red hot economy. Then what would happen 2 years on when it was a false alarm. It would be a financial apocalypse that would make the word "depression" feel like affluence.

I am making a point not saying I agree with it.

Perhaps one of the reasons trickle down doesn't work as prophesied..

No doubt it does get regurgitated at some point but 40 years later than a debt hungry society needs.



.