Jobseeker with Savings

Gavin83

MoDo wrote: »

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?"

Your total avoidance of this question is telling.

Life doesn't work how you suggest. At the moment they'll have a budget assigned to JSA. They'll base this on the predicted number of people that will require it. They'll get this figure from unemployment numbers minus the mean amount of people with satisfactory savings from the last few years.

If they change the policy and give everyone JSA they'll have to adjust the budget and therefore raise new money from elsewhere. If you want everyone to receive JSA the Government will need new money.

So the question stands, where do you expect this to come from?

MoDo

Gavin83 wrote: »

Your total avoidance of this question is telling.

Life doesn't work how you suggest. At the moment they'll have a budget assigned to JSA. They'll base this on the predicted number of people that will require it. They'll get this figure from unemployment numbers minus the mean amount of people with satisfactory savings from the last few years.

If they change the policy and give everyone JSA they'll have to adjust the budget and therefore raise new money from elsewhere. If you want everyone to receive JSA the Government will need new money.

So the question stands, where do you expect this to come from?

As I already mentioned it several times, but you probably don't want to see it - money would come from those resources that are currently supporting fags, cider and taxis = cutting benefits as it is happening at the moment. Or do you think that giving £50k to one family that has never worked and £0 to somebody who has worked for 30 years and lost his job is fair?

E.g. family that I mentioned with £726/week was going into something about £500/week. It was quite funny when they asked me (an employed person) whether the Council has reduced also my housing benefit. They obviously do not understand that not everybody has got his/her house for free.

MoDo

Gavin83 wrote: »

Life doesn't work how you suggest. At the moment they'll have a budget assigned to JSA. They'll base this on the predicted number of people that will require it.

No, life doesn't work as you think. For example - you are doing your job as a council employee and one day you find that you've got 5 new families with 22 kids altogether in your area from a different country and all of them apply for benefits, for school places, doctors, dentists, etc. And in a couple of months these demands are met. Where is your prediction about the number of people?

PS: I don't want to start a topic about migration (I am not against it), I am just saying that 100% prediction is impossible and it doesn't work in practical life.

Gavin83

MoDo wrote: »

As I already mentioned it several times, but you probably don't want to see it - money would come from those resources that are currently supporting fags, cider and taxis = cutting benefits as it is happening at the moment. Or do you think that giving £50k to one family that has never worked and £0 to somebody who has worked for 30 years and lost his job is fair?

So your suggestion is basically to take away benefits from those who need it more and give it to those who could actually do without?

I can totally see where you are coming from on this but like it or not, if you were to cut benefits to those families they would be in a much worse position than that of a person with £16k+ in savings. The whole benefit system is setup to support those who need it and while it is open to abuse there is no denying that the person with savings doesn't really need it as they can live off their savings until they run out.

I do think the benefits system needs a massive rethink and they really need to adjust how they hand 'money' out and possibly the amount as well but I don't think your suggestion would work in practical terms.

Predictions are naturally not 100% accurate, thats why they're called predictions. However using trends and statistics they will know roughly who will need to claim benefits. They will likely overestimate but this is to be expected.

There will of course be a contingency fund that various Government departments can dip into if required but they'll have to strongly justify their reasons and there is natually only a limited amount of money.

MoDo

Gavin83 wrote: »

if you were to cut benefits to those families they would be in a much worse position than that of a person with £16k+ in savings.

Those families can afford paying for taxis every morning (instead of 15 minutes of walking), can smoke (how much can you spend on smoking over 20 years, while somebody else has been saving), they have big TV's at home, smartphones, etc. I can see those homes quite regularly. Taxpayers pay them a comfortable life. And when they have to do something - e.g. come to the Council, or parents come to school, etc - they never have time (despite of being unemployed).

If you think they are poor, so they are actually in a poverty trap. They have no motivation for budgeting or even saving, because they would lose their entitlement to everything and would eventually have less money. They know they will live this life forever.

I feel sorry for people in unstable employment (agency workers) who work for minimal wage, try to make some emergency money, are 24/7 on phone for peanuts and have almost no support at all. They are in a lot worse situation.

And btw that benefit cutting is happening, it's not my idea. £500.5/week will now be a maximum what a family can get.

pinpin

MoDo wrote: »

I feel sorry for people in unstable employment (agency workers) who work for minimal wage, try to make some emergency money, are 24/7 on phone for peanuts and have almost no support at all. They are in a lot worse situation.

You're describing meeeeeee!!
And yes, life sucks

It pays to work if you are lucky enough to earn a massive wage.
If not, then you are much better off on benefits I guess (not only do you 'earn' slightly more money, there's also the HUGE bonus of not having to actually get out of bed! )

QuackQuackOops

agrinnall wrote: »

Because the jobcentre will find out and sanction you.

As a matter of interest, how will they find out?
The government do not go looking in every single bank/building society for any accounts in your name.

Gavin83

MoDo wrote: »

Those families can afford paying for taxis every morning (instead of 15 minutes of walking), can smoke (how much can you spend on smoking over 20 years, while somebody else has been saving), they have big TV's at home, smartphones, etc. I can see those homes quite regularly. Taxpayers pay them a comfortable life. And when they have to do something - e.g. come to the Council, or parents come to school, etc - they never have time (despite of being unemployed).

If you think they are poor, so they are actually in a poverty trap. They have no motivation for budgeting or even saving, because they would lose their entitlement to everything and would eventually have less money. They know they will live this life forever.

I feel sorry for people in unstable employment (agency workers) who work for minimal wage, try to make some emergency money, are 24/7 on phone for peanuts and have almost no support at all. They are in a lot worse situation.

And btw that benefit cutting is happening, it's not my idea. £500.5/week will now be a maximum what a family can get.

We actually agree on many points. We both clearly think that the benefits system needs to be seriously adjusted and I don't think anyone should be better off on benefits than working. This is a crazy situation that should never occur. The benefit cap is a start but more needs to be done.

The only thing we seem to disagree on is if someone with savings should receive help or not. This is a matter of policy more than anything and currently the Government appear to agree with my point of view.

pinpin wrote: »

You're describing meeeeeee!!
And yes, life sucks

It pays to work if you are lucky enough to earn a massive wage.
If not, then you are much better off on benefits I guess (not only do you 'earn' slightly more money, there's also the HUGE bonus of not having to actually get out of bed! )

Depends what your definition of massive is. I'm considerably better off working than living on benefits and I don't consider my salary particularly high.

Voyager2002

QuackQuackOops wrote: »

As a matter of interest, how will they find out?
The government do not go looking in every single bank/building society for any accounts in your name.

Google "data matching". HMRC have details of all bank accounts and similar in the country with access to similar data from most countries in the EU, the USA and many other regions of the world. If the name of an account holder matches that of a benefit claimant then they will look more closely...

MoDo

Gavin83 wrote: »

The only thing we seem to disagree on is if someone with savings should receive help or not. This is a matter of policy more than anything and currently the Government appear to agree with my point of view.

I wouldn't have a problem with means testing if it was something like 30k on the top of your property (or property value above a certain level would be counted as well). But having 6-16k, when you have no house, no car, no income, no nothing, just those bloody 6-16k, doesn't make anybody a wealthy person.

Mainly if somebody who has just invested everything into his newly built posh house worth a million, with a Picasso on the wall and diamonds on his wife's neck, and left only 5k in his bank, then lost his job as a lawyer, can now claim everything (just a fake scenario, but officially, this person would be "in need" - and this is ridiculous). But it seems you agree with the Government on this.