Jobseeker with Savings

MoDo

Quote from another thread: "Anything above 6k - you lose £1 a week for every £250 over £6k. Over 16k - you get nothing."

A - John works hard, lives a modest life, saves for his future (house, family, children, etc). Someday he will lose his job and government will say - "you're not entitled for any help (after 6 months) you are too wealthy (you are having 20% deposit for your future house). Go and spend your savings, you berk."

B - Mark works hard, but spends everything on alcohol, cigarettes, night life, takes loans on holidays. Someday he will lose his job and will have a minus balance on his accounts. And government would say "don't worry, we'll help you with everything, it's not your fault that you are a Mr. Zero. You'll get all kinds of benefits. Would thou like a Council house? Furnished?"


Do I understand it correctly?


Edit: John and Mark worked same years in same jobs, paid same taxes, same NI. One of them saved, one of them spent.

topaztiger1983

From gov.uk website

To get Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) you must:

be 18 or over but below State Pension age - there are some exceptions if you’re 16 or 17

not be in full-time education

be in England, Scotland or Wales

be able and available for work

be actively seeking work

work on average less than 16 hours a week

go to a JSA interview

Also, to get income-based JSA you (and your partner if you have one):

must usually work less than 24 hours a week (on average)

must have £16,000 or less in savings

Back to me now:

so from that I gather that your statements are correct, it's not right but you are correct

Also I was person (b) but without the drinking & smoking, but I never saved when I had a job, but I wish that I had saved, even though I have a council house & furniture from the council, but I was not a waster like you describe in you statement (b)

I am now working again & will be trying to save for my future now

p00hsticks

MoDo wrote: »

Quote from another thread: "Anything above 6k - you lose £1 a week for every £250 over £6k. Over 16k - you get nothing."

A - John works hard, lives a modest life, saves for his future (house, family, children, etc). Someday he will lose his job and government will say - "you're not entitled for any help (after 6 months) you are too wealthy (you are having 20% deposit for your future house). Go and spend your savings, you berk."

B - Mark works hard, but spends everything on alcohol, cigarettes, night life, takes loans on holidays. Someday he will lose his job and will have a minus balance on his accounts. And government would say "don't worry, we'll help you with everything, it's not your fault that you are a Mr. Zero. You'll get all kind of benefits. Would thou like a Council house? Furnished?"


Do I understand it correctly?

This is really for discussion time, but I'll bite..

If Mark is single, he's very unlikely to get a council house or 'all kinds of benefits' but you have the basic scenario right.

But then a question for you is then how do you think the situation could be improved ? by giving John loads of taxpayers money even though he is well able to support himself ? or by refusing to give Mark (and any dependents) any support at all ?

MoDo

p00hsticks wrote: »

But then a question for you is then how do you think the situation could be improved ? by giving John loads of taxpayers money even though he is well able to support himself ?

Should we then charge people also at doctor's when they have savings and are well able to pay for all services?

Btw John had also been a taxpayer in this scenario...

DomRavioli

MoDo wrote: »

Should we then charge people also at doctor's when they have savings and are well able to pay for all services?

Btw John had also been a taxpayer in this scenario...

It is actually being put forward as an idea to stop time wasters.

And yes, those most in need due to lack of funds (from WHATEVER situation, regardless of your Daily Mail attitude) are usually entitled. If situation A had money, why don't they support themselves instead of asking the state to do so? They have the funds to do it.

MoDo

DomRavioli wrote: »

And yes, those most in need due to lack of funds (from WHATEVER situation, regardless of your Daily Mail attitude) are usually entitled. If situation A had money, why don't they support themselves instead of asking the state to do so? They have the funds to do it.

Do you think it is fair even if John and Mark worked same years in same jobs, paid same taxes, same NI? One of them saved, one of them spent and government then supports the money waster.

Let's say, if you were dividing £100k as a heritage for your 5 children, would you give everybody £20k or would you use a different method?

Ronaldo_Mconaldo

Why not blow a large wedge of the savings just after losing your job so you drop below the limit? Open up an account with a bookie and stick it in there for a while and then withdraw it later on, gradually?

agrinnall

Ronaldo_Mconaldo wrote: »

Why not blow a large wedge of the savings just after losing your job so you drop below the limit? Open up an account with a bookie and stick it in there for a while and then withdraw it later on, gradually?

Because the jobcentre will find out and sanction you.

DomRavioli

MoDo wrote: »

Do you think it is fair even if John and Mark worked same years in same jobs, paid same taxes, same NI? One of them saved, one of them spent and government then supports the money waster.

Let's say, if you were dividing £100k as a heritage for your 5 children, would you give everybody £20k or would you use a different method?

Yes, I think its fair. There's very few real people who are person B who have worked and put into the system, so your theories are still straight from the Daily Mail, and are so wrong regarding the majority of people who have to claim benefits in order to survive.

Firstly, I wouldn't have five children; I cannot afford 5 children, so would not ever do that. I also wouldn't give my kids free money either, it instils bad ethics into them; I'm a parent, not a handout machine.

And who are you to judge if someone has habits? You seem to be unable to comprehend that the majority of people on benefits usually have at least one person in the household working; it is toffs and fat cats with bad attitudes, not far from your own, who keep the working classes suppressed with zero hours contracts and paying below the living wage. There's also landlords who put rent at a level most struggle with due to the above, further forcing people to be unable to save anything.

You have no idea of the real world, and still set those 5 theoretical children up for a fall - that is what they will come to expect from you and the world. Make them work for it.

p00hsticks

MoDo wrote: »

Let's say, if you were dividing £100k as a heritage for your 5 children, would you give everybody £20k or would you use a different method?

I'd use a different method if the circumstances suggested. As an extreme, if I had two children and one was in a really good well paid and secure job, owned a house outright, with a large amount of savings, whilst another through no fault of their own was in a poorly paid position, living hand to mouth and perhaps with dependents to bring up, then yes, I would give / leave more to the latter than the former.

I believe that the benefits system is / should be there as a last resort to help those who are in need of help and are not able to help themselves - not some sort of government piggy bank where you put money in and then take it out whether you need it or not.

CCFC_80

MoDo wrote: »

Quote from another thread: "Anything above 6k - you lose £1 a week for every £250 over £6k. Over 16k - you get nothing."

A - John works hard, lives a modest life, saves for his future (house, family, children, etc). Someday he will lose his job and government will say - "you're not entitled for any help (after 6 months) you are too wealthy (you are having 20% deposit for your future house). Go and spend your savings, you berk."

B - Mark works hard, but spends everything on alcohol, cigarettes, night life, takes loans on holidays. Someday he will lose his job and will have a minus balance on his accounts. And government would say "don't worry, we'll help you with everything, it's not your fault that you are a Mr. Zero. You'll get all kinds of benefits. Would thou like a Council house? Furnished?"


Do I understand it correctly?


Edit: John and Mark worked same years in same jobs, paid same taxes, same NI. One of them saved, one of them spent.

Yes, you are quite correct and the message unfortunately is. Don't have any money saved when you become unemployed.Make sure you have spent everything beforehand as then you will get rewarded.

Completely unfair and you have summed it up perfectly