Jobseeker with Savings

Marshmallow82

In situation A, John would claim contribution based JSA

Podge52

It would only be unfair if John wasn't allowed to spend his money how he wanted.

IT was johns choice to save, he could have chosen not to.

p00hsticks

Marshmallow82 wrote: »

In situation A, John would claim contribution based JSA

but,as MoDO mentioned, this is only available for six months

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?

A more accurate analogy for benefits would be....

Let's say that you are already heavily in debt, paying out far more than you have coming in.. you have five children, three of who are working , one who is not but has savings and a fifth who has no job and no income.

Q. How much further are you pepared to put yourself into debt to pay your children, and which of them would you then give the money to ?

I can quite understand why a person who has worked 'all their lives' would feel aggrieved if and when thare are told that they need to dip into their savings before getting much in the way of benefits - I'd be one of them (and may indeed soon be in that position).

But in the current situation I'd say we need to be reducing the benefits budget, not increasing it - and we wont do that by changing the rules to give money to people who are actually able to support themselves without state intervention.

MoDo

DomRavioli wrote: »

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.

Challenge the statement, not the person. Why do you mention Daily Mail? I don't read it Where do I judge anybody? I am talking about general rules.

"I also wouldn't give my kids free money either"
Ok, someday, when you will be dying as a 100 years old man, you would spend everything on your last day, because you would not want to give your children anything. And of course not equally. I accept your choice.

MoDo

Podge52 wrote: »

It would only be unfair if John wasn't allowed to spend his money how he wanted.

IT was johns choice to save, he could have chosen not to.

It's interesting how people think John is wealthy and can look after himself, because he's got let's say 16k in a bank, but hasn't got his own house. People with a house (of whatever value, when they live in there) can claim everything when their bank account is zero.

moneyistooshorttomention

Yep...that's right. You got it.

...and no it isn't fair.

Hence why anyone at risk of losing their job does have to be careful to keep their savings down underneath that limit.

I never thought of how to deal with that one myself, so did duly keep my savings under that limit, ie by spending spare money (on useful things, ie not just "blowing it") as soon as it came in.

Thank goodness I am now retired and can keep my savings as savings in that respect (well I could....if it wasn't for the fact its now early 21st century and we are all at risk of having our savings grabbed by a bank bail-in).

Honestly, I despair as to just how on earth we are supposed to keep our savings safe.

My cynics' take on things is that maybe I should learn about antiques and the like and deliberately buy some antiques (at the vastly inflated prices set for furniture if it comes into that category) and regard that as my "savings". Proof against Government grabbing if unemployed. Proof against Government grabbing if there is a bank bail-in (when....when....not "if" I guess). Proof against common or garden theft (courtesy of insurance cover).

Slight snag to that = it would take quite some research to learn enough about what particular furniture, etc, is being called "antiques" and deliberately having an inflated value put on it so that it constitutes a safe form of savings....

MoDo

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Yep...that's right. You got it.

...and no it isn't fair.

Hence why anyone at risk of losing their job does have to be careful to keep their savings down underneath that limit.

I never thought of how to deal with that one myself, so did duly keep my savings under that limit, ie by spending spare money (on useful things, ie not just "blowing it") as soon as it came in.

Thank goodness I am now retired and can keep my savings as savings in that respect (well I could....if it wasn't for the fact its now early 21st century and we are all at risk of having our savings grabbed by a bank bail-in).

Honestly, I despair as to just how on earth we are supposed to keep our savings safe.

So the rule is: "Are you at risk of losing your job? Spend your money asap!" Isn't it quite absurd?

Gavin83

p00hsticks wrote: »

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.

That's a good way to alienate and possibly lose a child. There have been plenty of topics relating to this on here. I'd also be curious as to why someone would be in a poorly paid job through 'no fault of their own' but I guess this is a debate for another topic.

MoDo wrote: »

It's interesting how people think John is wealthy and can look after himself, because he's got let's say 16k in a bank, but hasn't got his own house. People with a house (of whatever value, when they live in there) can claim everything when their bank account is zero.

How do you propose the house owner with no capital spends the money tied up in their property? They still need somewhere to live.

This is practically the same debate as that of an elderly person having to pay for their care home place and therefore my answer will be the same. We live in a country with a social system designed to support those who need it. Like it or not the person with a large savings balance doesn't really need the help while the person who has spent their money and therefore doesn't have anything does need the support.

Is it fair? Technically not but its the best method. I don't particularly find the idea of the country supporting someone who has money fair either. I feel more strongly about this for elderly care but even so, if someone has savings they should use it. If your that against it you always have the option to move to a country with no social support network as it won't change here.

MoDo

Gavin83 wrote: »

We live in a country with a social system designed to support those who need it. Like it or not the person with a large savings balance doesn't really need the help while the person who has spent their money and therefore doesn't have anything does need the support.

...if someone has savings they should use it...

Ok, our John will be spending his savings unless he will be without the money (and still without his own house) and then he can start claiming. While a person with their own house will be claiming everything all the time.