working vs benefits

osdset

tumboodle wrote: »

I'm sorry to say but you are not living in the real world. Of course people will weigh up if it is worth working.

I got to 60 and had enough of work so I worked out what the total benefits would be V my current net salary.

I then went to the jobcentre to have it confirmed (they looked at me as though I had two heads) when I asked the question.

I plumped for benefits and to be honest I haven't looked back - that was nearly 5 years ago. My total benefits exceeded my net salary by a mile ( my gross salary was £35,000pa).

So I retired early and certainly don't have any feelings of guilt. If the government want to make this possible, who am I to refuse the option?

Hi Andy, still cleaning the gutters and trimming the conifers are we? How much are you and Flo collectively on now?

p00hsticks

tumboodle wrote: »

No it isn't - my own situation actually proves it!

Your own individual situation cannot possibly prove the original assertion from krustylouise that I was challenging, which was that...

krustylouise wrote: »

we'd all be financially better off not working and on benefits (this has recently been confirmed to me by a lady in my local town hall,!

As I stated before this is complete bunkum. do you think David Cameron would be better off on benefits ? Richard Branson ? Robbie Williams ? Victoria Beckham ?

I'm a middle aged single woman, own my house outright, no children, earning above average. I'd be entitled to very little in benefits if I lost my job - certainly nowhere near enough to replace my salary.

I'm prepared to accept that in your particular case you may have been worse off moving from benefits into work - but it's a big leap from that to claiming that that would be the case for everyone.

Gross exaggeration never helps win an argument, it only means that what could be an underlying valid point gets ridiculed...

tomtom256

p00hsticks wrote: »

Your own individual situation cannot possibly prove the original assertion from krustylouise that I was challenging, which was that...



As I stated before this is complete bunkum. do you think David Cameron would be better off on benefits ? Richard Branson ? Robbie Williams ? Victoria Beckham ?

I'm a middle aged single woman, own my house outright, no children, earning above average. I'd be entitled to very little in benefits if I lost my job - certainly nowhere near enough to replace my salary.

I'm prepared to accept that in your particular case you may have been worse off moving from benefits into work - but it's a big leap from that to claiming that that would be the case for everyone.

Gross exaggeration never helps win an argument, it only means that what could be an underlying valid point gets ridiculed...

Irony!

You use gross exaggeration and then say gross exaggeration never helps win an argument.

p00hsticks

tomtom256 wrote: »

Irony!

You use gross exaggeration and then say gross exaggeration never helps win an argument.

Please point out the part of my post where I have exaggerated ?

I have stated my own circumstances accurately.

Yes, I have quoted some extreme examples of people who I know won't meet the original assertion that 'we would all be better off on benefits rather than working', but when attempting to prove or disprove an assertion you must look at the extremes to see if they fall in with your theory or not.

tomtom256

p00hsticks wrote: »

Please point out the part of my post where I have exaggerated.

Where you list the millionaires and ask would they be better off on benefits!

ska_lover

Can just interject and say yes, it is definitely possible to be worse off financially when you move from benefits to full time work.

This is what happened to me when I took a job, this must have been around 15 years back - after a period of unemployment. Whilst not hesitating to get back into the world of work, I was £30 a week worse off (as you loose housing benefit, council tax benefit, free school meals and was a huge drop for a single parent, which I was, at the time) and I did end up accumulating debt over a period of around 3 years until I could get myself out of the minimum wage trap. Our grocery budget back then was £7 per week

I had peers in the same position as me, at the time, who wouldn't work and thought I was completely crazy for even getting out of bed to work

I had to agree with them, at times, but I persisted as I really believed I was building something for the future and really wanted to set an example to my son

Now, fast forward 15 years, I own my own house and am on a decent wage, and two of those old peers that were making wise cracks at me are still on benefits, and as their children have grown up, they too have left school and first thing they have done is 'sign on'

That was my choice, and I am happy with that. I just wanted to share my experience, that's all.

ska_lover

p00hsticks wrote: »

I'm a middle aged single woman, own my house outright, no children, earning above average. I'd be entitled to very little in benefits if I lost my job - certainly nowhere near enough to replace my salary.

.

Hi there,

I in no way wish to get involved in your dispute, but just reading this thread though wanted to make a point based on my own experiences

My post above explains a little about me, and I see from your circumstances you are in above average wage, which I too, am now. If I now went on benefits right now, I same as you, would loose out big time, as benefits would no where near cover my salary which I currently earn

Back when I made the transition from benefits to work - around 15 years back, I had very little skill sets, and really my only option was to obtain a job that would pay me minimum wage.

I think that is where the problem lies (of potentially being better off, or financially the same working v's benefits) - is if a person is making the transition from benefits to a minimum wage position. Being stuck in a minimum wage job, when you figure in the loss of other benefits, such as free prescriptions, free school meals, housing benefit, council tax benefit, you have to cover all of these along with other household expenses out of a megre wage - can be a real eye opener. Minimum wage jobs are a rat trap in essence and I would honestly urge anyone in one, to retrain

I was definitely much worse off initially, and did get into debt. I realised the only way forward was to somehow get a promotion/better wage - so therefore trained, whilst working, to enable me to apply for those better paid jobs

princessdon

ska_lover wrote: »

Hi there,

I in no way wish to get involved in your dispute, but just reading this thread though wanted to make a point based on my own experiences

My post above explains a little about me, and I see from your circumstances you are in above average wage, which I too, am now. If I now went on benefits right now, I same as you, would loose out big time, as benefits would no where near cover my salary which I currently earn

Back when I made the transition from benefits to work - around 15 years back, I had very little skill sets, and really my only option was to obtain a job that would pay me minimum wage.

I think that is where the problem lies (of potentially being better off, or financially the same working v's benefits) - is if a person is making the transition from benefits to a minimum wage position. Being stuck in a minimum wage job, when you figure in the loss of other benefits, such as free prescriptions, free school meals, housing benefit, council tax benefit, you have to cover all of these along with other household expenses out of a megre wage - can be a real eye opener. Minimum wage jobs are a rat trap in essence and I would honestly urge anyone in one, to retrain

I was definitely much worse off initially, and did get into debt. I realised the only way forward was to somehow get a promotion/better wage - so therefore trained, whilst working, to enable me to apply for those better paid jobs

Nail on head for me. Some people are better off not working or left with little extra for 30 hours work, benefits are an easy option for some. Those with the most to loose will always have a different outlook. Its why we insure as benefits wont cover your expenses. I'm glad it worked out for you and congratulations on your success.

FBaby

And once again, the problem is that people are only looking in the short term and refuse to have less as a mean to investing for the future. I suppose it is that attitude that if the government is looking well after me right now, they will do so in the future too. Maybe...or maybe not.

Ska lover is a perfect exemple of someone who chose to have less whilst probably experiencing the hard work that being a single mum and working full time comes with, probably waking up many mornings wondering why she was doing it, especially if her friends were there to remind her of how much better off they were, not just financially, but in terms of time and energy.

However, how many of these mums who chose to be on benefits long term are now facing the reality that what kept them with that life was their children and that once gone, the government doesn't care so much about you any longer. The loss of benefits is huge and now with the increase in retirement age, many will be faced with many years of no choice but working mimimum wage jobs because they have loss the opportunity to do better for themselves. All they have left is to go the disability route, but with that being also much more tightened and scrunitised it is not as straight forward as it used to be. It leaves with having children all the way up to 40 but I expected it won't be long until benefits are capped to the number of children once a parent/family live off benefits.

I don't think we will go back to a time of such a generous benefit system since the introduction of child benefits, even when the economy recover.

tumboodle

FBaby wrote: »

And once again, the problem is that people are only looking in the short term and refuse to have less as a mean to investing for the future. I suppose it is that attitude that if the government is looking well after me right now, they will do so in the future too. Maybe...or maybe not.

Ska lover is a perfect exemple of someone who chose to have less whilst probably experiencing the hard work that being a single mum and working full time comes with, probably waking up many mornings wondering why she was doing it, especially if her friends were there to remind her of how much better off they were, not just financially, but in terms of time and energy.

However, how many of these mums who chose to be on benefits long term are now facing the reality that what kept them with that life was their children and that once gone, the government doesn't care so much about you any longer. The loss of benefits is huge and now with the increase in retirement age, many will be faced with many years of no choice but working mimimum wage jobs because they have loss the opportunity to do better for themselves. All they have left is to go the disability route, but with that being also much more tightened and scrunitised it is not as straight forward as it used to be. It leaves with having children all the way up to 40 but I expected it won't be long until benefits are capped to the number of children once a parent/family live off benefits.

I don't think we will go back to a time of such a generous benefit system since the introduction of child benefits, even when the economy recover.

Someone that is in their mid 50's to early 60's doesn't really stand a chance of employment earning a good wage. I have known many that up until 2007/8 were in 'secure' employment earning £50,000+. Now they are shelf stacking or on the till at NMW. I can't see that any amount of retraining will help them.