Jobseeker with Savings

MoDo

silverwhistle wrote: »

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.

Yes, really, really, really! There are quite many of them in some areas.

But the main point was something different. I am not against benefits.

But...

When you work as a teacher, policeman, miner or cleaner, your wage (and your taxes and NI) doesn't depend on your savings. When your children go to a primary or secondary (non private) school, it is free for them regardless your wallet. When you're going to buy some milk, price does not depend on your bank account.

But when you're looking for a job...

If I buy a new car a couple of months before I get fired, I will then get support (because of having no money, and being "in need"). If you keep the money, because you wanted to buy your car later, government will tell you, use it for food, rent, etc. And then I can give you a lift to your bank, when you are going break your saving account "NEW CAR 2015" for food. I will pay my food from JSA, because I broke my account 2 months ago. Would it be fair?

moneyistooshorttomention

As stated, no it wouldn't be fair.

The thing that always struck me is that its possible to spend money you really intend to keep as savings (and I did this myself, prior to retirement), but mine was spent wisely, ie on doing work on my house or making sure the possessions I had to buy were that bit better quality (so they would last longer) and the like.

The absolute crunch point is how on earth is it possible to keep savings that are money quite deliberately and necessarily put to one side to be a deposit to buy a house, rather than savings that are (or might be) genuinely "spare money", that has just been put to one side because there is nothing in particular the person wishes to spend it on.

It was a thought that worried me as to how to keep my house savings safe against possible unemployment (having had some spells of that, courtesy of redundancies and an unfair dismissal) and I didn't like the fact that I didn't really dare save anyway for a house, in case that money got "nicked off" me all officially because of a subsequent further spell of unemployment. I was in a dilemma and can fully sympathise. My salary was always too low to have a chance, as a single person, anyway of being able to save enough, so it never came to taking the risk of losing my house savings in the event and I managed to buy my starter house in the end through a stroke of sheer good luck, whereby the "allowable" amount of savings that was all I had was enough that I could do it.

If I had earnt enough salary to be able to save for a house deposit, then I guess I would have had to do a crash course in learning about "antiques", in order to be able to stash my savings safely tied-up in the furniture in my house being "antiques", rather than ordinary furniture, in order to protect it.

So, yep distinct sympathy to anyone who hasn't managed to buy a house yet and is worrying as to how to keep their house deposit savings safe against any period of unemployment that might hit.

seven-day-weekend

We are pensioners and do not claim any 'top-up' Benefits that many other Pensioners do. Nor do we have any reduction of Council Tax. We do not qualify for these.

We worked hard just the same as everyone else (and in fact those on Pension Credit may well not have worked much at all).

It's not always someone's fault that they have not been able to save. Someone has to be your cook, shop assistant, care assistant, cleaner, supermarket worker, low-paid jobs where people can't always afford to save. Thankfully, we do have savings.

I know a man, in his fifties, he has never worked, yet when he 'retires' he will get a State Pension higher than mine as he will be on the new system.

Is this fair? No, but life is not always fair, I knew what I signed up for and there will always be people like him around.

iris

t0rt0ise wrote: »

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.

He'll probably start to foster children. I know someone who has done this and now has more money than ever before:cool:

Gavin83

MoDo wrote: »

When you work as a teacher, policeman, miner or cleaner, your wage (and your taxes and NI) doesn't depend on your savings. When your children go to a primary or secondary (non private) school, it is free for them regardless your wallet. When you're going to buy some milk, price does not depend on your bank account.

But when you're looking for a job...

That's a salaried job though. It's a completely different scenario to a state handout. You can't honestly be suggesting one employee gets paid more than another because they have savings? Public sector jobs still have to be somewhat competitive to private sector and ensuring the employees could never save at all goes against this really.

I believe that the current system that makes sure people use their savings before the state supports them is the fairest solution. I don't see why the state should support someone who clearly has the means to support themselves. I do actually believe the state supports people far too much but that's another topic.

Gavin83

iris wrote: »

He'll probably start to foster children. I know someone who has done this and now has more money than ever before:cool:

Fostering is lucrative. You could however argue that this is basically a job. Looking after children is demanding and if they're being placed somewhere it avoids the cost of housing them in a children's home.

CCFC_80

As mentioned briefly in a previous post the system rewards people who have spent and not those who have saved.

Person A has spent £20,000 on a car and gets JSA after 6 months,(no savings left) Person B has £20,000 saved for a car and then loses their job and doesn't get JSA after 6 months. They could spend it but they will likely get done for deprivation of capital

This surely cannot be fair. So to reiterate,if you think you might be losing your job, make sure you have spent all your savings as you will then get rewarded by the government!!:mad:

Podge52

And there are those on here who say it's the benefit claimants who are envious.

MoDo

Gavin83 wrote: »

That's a salaried job though. It's a completely different scenario to a state handout. You can't honestly be suggesting one employee gets paid more than another because they have savings? Public sector jobs still have to be somewhat competitive to private sector and ensuring the employees could never save at all goes against this really.

I believe that the current system that makes sure people use their savings before the state supports them is the fairest solution. I don't see why the state should support someone who clearly has the means to support themselves. I do actually believe the state supports people far too much but that's another topic.

??????????????
Am I suggesting that?

I am just saying that there are same people, with same wages, same taxes, same NI (for example teachers who started today), but then one can save, one can waste (smoking).

Why on Earth do people think that everybody with savings is at least a landlord with 10 properties and investment in Oil companies? 16k is not enough for a house deposit if you live let's say in London. How can a person with unstable employment (agency worker) save for a house, when they always have to spend their savings. I am talking about middle class or low middle class people who may have been saving this amount over 16 years, while other one has been smoking over 16 years (£3 a day = £1000 a year).

Podge52

If you don't have stable employment why would you want a mortgage?