Jobseeker with Savings

p00hsticks

Gavin83 wrote: »

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.

I was thinking in particular of those who make the decision (perhaps because they have little other choice) to work only part time or even give up work entirely because they have caring responsibilites- either for elderly parents or disabled children.

If one of several children gives up their job and possibly their independent living in order to provide years of full time care for an elderly parent with dementia, say, then I would consider it perfectly justified if the parent left more to that child than to the others - and if the other children felt 'alienated', then personally I'd say 'tough!'

MoDo

p00hsticks wrote: »

I was thinking in particular of those who make the decision (perhaps because they have little other choice) to work only part time or even give up work entirely because they have caring responsibilites- either for elderly parents or disabled children.

If one of several children gives up their job and possibly their independent living in order to provide years of full time care for an elderly parent with dementia, say, then I would consider it perfectly justified if the parent left more to that child than to the others - and if the other children felt 'alienated', then personally I'd say 'tough!'

This is a completely different story, when you want give them something as a reward (like a wage for your carer, who actually works for you).

But if you had two sons, both were let's say teachers with same wages. One of them saved, one of them travelled around the world. And in the end you would give your heritage to that one who spent his money, because now is "in need", while the other one has a bank account.

I would surely divide it equally. But it's your choice.

theoretica

If the system was reformed to pay everyone equally by how much would National Insurance need to rise? As a saver myself I think I would resent any increase more than I would appreciate being eligible for payments.

Given the hard time I read about people on JSA being given, especially longer term jobseekers I think people might feel that avoiding this was a good use of savings.

TELLIT01

Sadly, the reality of the benefits system is that it supports the !!!!less and does nothing to help the prudent. As the OP suggests - 2 people with exactly the same work and life situations, but one saves and the other ****** is against the wall, both lose their job - the saver gets nothing and the other gets support. How is that right? What does it suggest is the better way to get the state to pay your rent etc?

MoDo

theoretica wrote: »

If the system was reformed to pay everyone equally by how much would National Insurance need to rise? As a saver myself I think I would resent any increase more than I would appreciate being eligible for payments.

Given the hard time I read about people on JSA being given, especially longer term jobseekers I think people might feel that avoiding this was a good use of savings.

New benefit cap £500/week might save some money. Yes, there are families who claimed even £700 a week on benefits and had never worked before. And on the top of that free school meals, free dental care, etc. I know families like that personally. And yes, I've seen their benefit documentation as I worked with them as a professional, it's not a myth. And they would say that children are late for school in the morning, because "taxis are not available at 8am".

MoDo

keitht53 wrote: »

Sadly, the reality of the benefits system is that it supports the !!!!less and does nothing to help the prudent. As the OP suggests - 2 people with exactly the same work and life situations, but one saves and the other ****** is against the wall, both lose their job - the saver gets nothing and the other gets support. How is that right? What does it suggest is the better way to get the state to pay your rent etc?

Exactly, why would you save for a house, when tax payers could pay your rent?

shortcrust

Groundbreaking stuff here.

MoDo

People in unstable employment who try to save, but who keep suffering redundancy, could run through all their savings several times, and never get a deposit for a house together, or not within working range of a 25 year mortgage.

silverwhistle

MoDo wrote: »

Exactly, why would you save for a house, when tax payers could pay your rent?

You say you worked with "families like that" professionally? Really?
Really really?

So why not suggest to these people a life of crime? That way they can have free food and accommodation all provided by Her Majesty.

The fact is, as a reasonably well-off society which can afford to employ "professionals" like you, it's a penalty we have to accept that there are inadequate people in this society, and often they have kids. The cycle often repeats itself, that is true, but we don't seem to do very well when we take such kids into care, do we?

So the solution is what exactly: concentration camps, children homes and work camps? Eugenics for the inadequates amongst us? Or maybe just an acceptance that they probably take out a lot less from our society than some intelligent but asocial banker. Of course they're annoying as f***, particularly when they trash your house (I rather enjoyed thinking up some imaginative retributions on a few occasions), but the measure of a fair society is putting up with such people. There aren't as many of them as you think, and they tend to be the product of a less socially mobile society which is, frighteningly, where we seem to be headed.

t0rt0ise

I was on the dole with savings so got contribution based JSA for 6 months and then stopped signing on. Was then able to take my time and only apply for jobs I really wanted, while people with no savings still have to sign on and apply for any job going most of which they don't really want. I'm glad I had savings to see me through.


Guy who lives in the place downstairs has told me quite openly that he doesn't work because he gets more on the dole. He probably gets more than me at the moment. But I'd like to see him again when his three children are grown up and he's just living off his dole money with no extras for the children. He'll have no chance of getting work then because he hasn't worked for years. I'll be retired by then living off my NHS and Saul pensions. I don't envy him, I think I'll have the last laugh.