Jobseeker with Savings

MoDo

Yes, both should have support, otherwise paying NI doesn't make sense.

Gavin83 wrote: »

If your suggesting both should receive it then you still haven't answered my question, where do you suggest the money to support this should come from?

And again Where are the taxes and NI of that guy? Taxes of that guy who had worked and saved instead of smoking.


In other words. National Insurance is Insurance. It means you pay something and sometimes you should get something (when you lose your job, when you are ill, etc). Otherwise other types of insurance e.g. Car insurance company could tell you in a case of accident "you've got enough money to repair your car, do it yourself. Doesn't matter that you have been paying your insurance, you've got a bank account." And it would be perfectly right and fair according to current JSA logic.

lakes17

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


I think you are missing a vital point on these threads - on top of work taxes and N.I. you're paying tax on the interest on your savings but your friend is actually contributing far more than you as the majority of the cost of cigarettes and alcohol is taxes!! Going away he will also be paying VAT so is contributing further to the Government coffers.


I'm actually in the same situation as yourself was made redundant nearly 2yrs ago - after 6mths wasn't eligible for income based benefits even though I had paid in to the system for 40yrs. I got a job about 4mths ago but due to illness had to leave 2mths ago. As I had already claimed during the last 2yrs I wasn't entitled to anything. But I wouldn't change all the sacrifices I made to buy my house so I could now claim benefits.


And yes I feel very lucky that I can choose where to live and not be under the threat of the landlord out of the blue deciding to give me 2mths notice to quit!!! I might not be getting benefits to help with my weekly living expenses but I am getting money from the system due to the number of times I've had to visit the doctor over the last few weeks - number of times I've seen the consultant at the hospital over the last few weeks - all the x rays I've had taken. All of this has been paid for by the NHS!!


If you look a bit deeper than benefits to help with weekly benefits you will probably find that you are also benefiting indirectly from our welfare system.


Finally, there is not a welfare system that can be devised that will benefit everyone 100%. There will always be some who don't meet the criteria and feel badly done-by. But I honestly believe despite some of it's flaws the welfare system that we have got is the fairest to everyone, as currently we are all eligible for NHS help education for our children regardless of savings/income/contributions. It also gives a helping hand for those most in need when they temporarily have no income or means to support themselves whilst those who can support themselves don't meet the necessary criteria as the welfare system isn't a bottomless pit!!

MoDo

lakes17 wrote: »

I'm actually in the same situation as yourself was made redundant nearly 2yrs ago - after 6mths wasn't eligible for income based benefits even though I had paid in to the system for 40yrs.

This thread is not about me

lakes17 wrote: »

It also gives a helping hand for those most in need when they temporarily have no income or means to support themselves

Really temporarily?

p00hsticks

MoDo wrote: »

Isn't it clear? I am just suggesting that two jobseekers should have same opportunities and same support when they are looking for a job.

And how do you think that should be achieved ?

By doing away with the means testing of benefits so all jobseekers get them ? (and if so how do you propose the money is raised to pay for it ? )

Or just by doing away with jobseeker benefits full stop ?

FBaby

Do you really think that the benefit system is about fairness? What you describe is no different to the situation with private pensions.

You will have families paying in an occupation pension each month to secure their future, therefore reducing their income to the same than some working 1/3rd less hours, but might end up with similar disposable income after retirement when they can claim pension credit and the rest.

There is no fairness in the system and that's what infuriates so many people, because when it affects you on an every day living, you expect a fair system that rewards hard worker. Unfortunately, the matter of fairness is very far low on the agenda of any political group (as long as their pay is fair!).

Whatever you choose, you take a risk. You might decide to save, everything goes well (including health, especially if you invest your energy on healthy living), and then when you retire, you live the life of riley, or you work hard, make compromises, and one day, you risk losing it all and be no better off than someone who has had a much easier life than you.

dandelionclock30

agrinnall wrote: »

Because the jobcentre will find out and sanction you.

They dont look into all the bank accounts people have, they just ask you and when I last signed on I gave them a mini statement with my current bank account details on.
They can look into everyones bank accounts but unless there is a cause for concern they dont. They expect people to be honest, which the majority of people are.

MissX

Also the same with council housing. If your on a monthly wage but cant afford to meet the increasing demands of rent in the capital then your pretty much screwed. the council will only house you if you are a drug addict / alcoholic / immigrant with several kids. I don't think that's fair.

MoDo

lakes17 wrote: »

but your friend is actually contributing far more than you as the majority of the cost of cigarettes and alcohol is taxes!!

NI is not about who contributes more. Otherwise people with high wages (and high taxes and NI) should get more according to your logic. I am saying people should be treated equally by law. Otherwise we don't live in democracy.

MoDo

p00hsticks wrote: »

and if so how do you propose the money is raised to pay for it ?

This is a nonsense question. If somebody (or a family with million members) entitled to benefits appears somewhere, there are always resources no matter what. Nobody would ask "where do we get the money from?"

By the ways, some money should be going to be available from reducing benefits. Some families will drop from £700+/week to £500.5/week

You've certainly heard of families claiming 50k net/year. It equals 75k gross annual wage. What a great job they have!

I have personally seen benefits documentation with £726/week (= £37,752 net annual income) - I often liaise with social services. There were no disabilities, no illnesses, no special circumstances. Just unemployed parents with 7 children. On the top of that they were entitled to free school meals, parents had many things for free (dentist, college courses, etc). And they were paying for a taxi every morning, because school was "too far" - about 15-20 minutes of walk. They were spending about £100/month on taxis, Mum also smoked. Where is all the money coming from?

JeLaw

I don't really want to get in a debate about benefits - but couldn't help noticing this thread.

OP - you're still better off having savings if you're out of work. I'm currently not working for health reasons. I'm not receiving ESA because I have savings - but thank god for that because I'm also probably going to have to find a new place to rent soon.

If you look in the Housing threads you'll see how hard it is to find a landlord willing to take on a tenant on benefits. Even if you're not on benefits but not working you'll face difficulty but at least you can offer to pay rent upfront (3 or 6 months), which gives you some chance of finding somewhere to live.

Someone out of work on benefits faces homelessness. You mention in one of your posts that they'd just get given a council house! Not likely. There's waits of years in some areas for social housing. I know because I've been on my council's housing list for some years. And I have a health condition that gives me some medical priority points.

It's always better to have savings if possible - whether working or not, and once I'm well enough to start working again I hope I can start to build up my savings again.