Wanting to leave work

dktreesea

BillJones wrote: »

He gets to be a policeman because he's applied, he's gained the required qualifications, and he's done enough to impress the recruiters during the recruitment process. He's then prepared, over years and decades, to work hard, no matter what the job throws at him, and to maintain the necessary standards.

While not in any way denigrating what is a fine profession, being in the police is also a career that is open to a decent fraction of society, so long as they are honest, diligent, hard working, and willing to obtain the necessary qualifications. It is absolutely not a career where people need to be "lucky" to be accepted.

Approximately 65,000 people apply to join the police every year. Of these, only a quarter get past the initial application stage. Of that quarter, only 1 in 10 make it onto becoming a police officer. 1,500 people or thereabouts, out of 65,000 people who applied. (source: www.dayjob.com)

Possibly all emergency services kinds of jobs have similar recruitment patterns. My point was not everyone can do a really interesting job. Working takes up a lot of our lives. To me it's important to have an interesting job and to walk away if it ever gets to not be a good fit.

Should the benefits system be used to support that system? Probably not. Most people who change jobs never go onto social welfare. But for those who, as a result of changes they make workwise, become entitled to claim benefits, I don't see why we should begrudge them. Why should the OP be less entitled to claim today because yesterday he was well paid enough not to need to claim?

dktreesea

whodathunkit wrote: »

Unless someone has a disability then nobody should have a problem with working full time, particularly if that's only 9 to 5.

Why do you think that people have suddenly become so feeble and why do you seek to encourage this frailty?

We don't have a social welfare system which requires people to work full time. Far from it. The requirement to access the benefits system if you are working is, if you are in a family with children, for the household to work 24 hours a week.

Do I agree with this, when the UK goes more and more into debt every single year? No. I think it's mad. But like it or not, that system is available to the OP, from the day after he resigns if his wife is already in work before he does so, so is able to then claim WTC and include him in her claim. Or if not, if he becomes self employed.

FBaby

Personally, I think it is important that the state values childcare as an occupation (whether done by a parent or a paid carer). It is also important that we don't fall into the trap of valuing a job by how much it pays. If a person decides to move job to a lower paid job (for whatever reason) that should remain their personal decision.

Indeed, a personal decision, but still a personal decision when they come on the forum moaning about how they are left with nothing to live on when their kids leave the nest and they see all their income from benefits go. There are more and more such posts from people who then see themselves as victim of the system when in most cases, it is the outcome of the personal decision they took years before.

BillJones

dktreesea wrote: »

Approximately 65,000 people apply to join the police every year. Of these, only a quarter get past the initial application stage.

And how many of those who get rejected at this stage chose to go for a smoke instead of sticking in at school? How many stole a CD from HMV? How many did not bother to fill in the application form correctly? How many could only put "drinking and watching television" as their spare-time activities?

I do understand your point, but also believe that "luck" plays a far smaller part than is often claimed.

stevemLS

Appreciate this is probably more suitable for the discussion board, but can't let the last few posts pass.

The welfare state is, in my view, there to prevent people falling into destitution. It is not their to support people who fancy dipping in and out of the labour market. It is for people who are UNABLE to support themselves, not those who choose not to.

Surely that is demonstrated by the sanction that applies to those who voluntarily leave their jobs? In my view, the sanction should apply to all benefits and not simply JSA.

micky2phones

A few years ago the place i was working had meeting every monday morning to see/vote who was going to be finished that week.
After the meeting we then did four ten hours nights,six hours saturday and sunday morning.
This went on for three months until my turn came to be finished,many monday mornings i wished it was me.
The pressure, worry i and others worked under was unreal,management were watching everyone to see if they could finish people without paying redundancy.

BillJones

stevemLS wrote: »

The welfare state is, in my view, there to prevent people falling into destitution.

I suppose that some of the disagreement on here comes because we are conflating "is" with "ought". Somehow the welfare system has changed from what it once was to a system where people genuinely are able to choose to use it to get a more comfortable life. To many of us, this just makes no sense.

Another source of disagreement is the very new belief that we should not judge people who do things that we believce to be bad for society. Well, stuff that. It is right and proper to heap disdain on someone who chooses to milk the system when they are able to look after themselves.

BigAunty

rvjgd wrote: »

According to entitledto if my wife earnt £8000 a year and I didn't work we would have the same net income as I have now. (Tax credits/housing benefit etc). Is this right? It seems a bit odd.

Are the calculations correct? Am I missing something? Please advise?

Quite possibly. Here on the forum, regular posters see many 'knowing' posts from tax credit/HB claimants who are very aware of the flaws, the benefit trap, which means that they can maximise their household income through benefits and not paying tax (plus also reduce the cost of travelling to work and child care), if they artificially reduce their employment income by one adult working part time.

Currently, a couple with children are only required to work 24 hours per week between them (with one adult working at least 16 of them) to qualify for working tax credits on top of child tax credits. When the law changed to increase the hours from 16 to 24 a few years ago, there were more than 200,000 households with just one parent in part time employment.

These figures are out of date as there have been tax credit and child care changes since. It does give you an idea how little some households get for having significantly higher employment income compared to their neighbours who might only earn a third of their gross wage but enjoy a similar disposable income due to the effect of tax and benefits.

http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd1/tbm/tbmt_2009.pdf
http://www.scribd.com/doc/229159265/ONS-Tax-Benefit-Model-Tables-April-2009

Two parents, one working earning £33,800 /year, 3 children, renting
Net take home cash incl benefits £30,165 /year
Post Housing costs £19,245/year
Two parents, one working earning £8,938 /year, 3 children, renting
Net take home cash incl benefits £27,964 /year
Post Housing costs £17,018/year


The following information is lifted from a poster on the Guardian Comments is Free section. Again figures will have changed:-

Basically, for a household with three children with earnings
under about 25k, what you earn makes almost no difference at
all to the money left in your hand after housing costs. Benefits
reductions remove everything you earn.
eg Table 1.7a on p100
Couple with 3 children: 2 under 11, 1 aged 11-15 Rent £69.00
pw Council tax £27.00 pw
Earn 100pw have 320pw in hand
Earn 200pw have 326pw in hand
Earn 300pw have 339pw in hand
Earn 400pw have 366pw in hand
Earn 500pw have 396pw in hand
So the couple who go to work four or five days a week get no
more money than someone who does sixteen hours a week. The
withdrawal is equally harsh if one of the parents moves into
employment - earning an extra 400pw of results in benefit
withdrawal on nearly all that is earned. Indeed the only way a
working parent can gain from obtaining employment is by leaving
the household.
There are two classes of household with children in this country:
* Those whose prosperity is largely determined by what they
earn.
* Those whose prosperity is largely determined by what they can
claim as in-work benefits.

dktreesea

FBaby wrote: »

Indeed, a personal decision, but still a personal decision when they come on the forum moaning about how they are left with nothing to live on when their kids leave the nest and they see all their income from benefits go. There are more and more such posts from people who then see themselves as victim of the system when in most cases, it is the outcome of the personal decision they took years before.

Are you suggesting that people should remain hostage, all their working lives, to poor decisions they made at some point in their past?

dktreesea

BillJones wrote: »

And how many of those who get rejected at this stage chose to go for a smoke instead of sticking in at school? How many stole a CD from HMV? How many did not bother to fill in the application form correctly? How many could only put "drinking and watching television" as their spare-time activities?

I do understand your point, but also believe that "luck" plays a far smaller part than is often claimed.

I'm not saying the ones who make it through the selection process get there entirely down to luck. Not at all. But, at the same time, you can't imho, expect people to be hostage to the fact that, say, they mucked around at school, so now don't have much prospects of getting a job/escaping from their dead end job.

People are forever looking to improve their lifestyle (including freeing up their time from paid work) and as much as some of us may disagree with the approach, the benefits system can play a significant part in the decision making process of how to go forward.