Angry re ESA

Lanzarote1938

Glen_Clark wrote: »

How would that work in practice?
If they didn't want to be offered the job they could just talk about their limitations, quote their need for statutory time off for Trade Union work, maternity/paternity leaves, or whatever..
We need proper jobs so we can offer a carrot, because it works so much better than a stick

I accept there are many ways for the workshy to ensure they never get a work offer which is why we need a time limit on JSA claims.
No one should be able to take it easy on JSA for more than a year.....longer if they are doing some sort of accepted training.

nannytone_2

Glen_Clark wrote: »

How would that work in practice?
If they didn't want to be offered the job they could just talk about their limitations, quote their need for statutory time off for Trade Union work, maternity/paternity leaves, or whatever..
We need proper jobs so we can offer a carrot, because it works so much better than a stick

potential employers give feedback to the DWP.

if any particular claimant received feedback that they were/reluctant/not trying during interviews a sanction can be applied.
this already happens

seven-day-weekend

My son once took a job that was initially LESS than his Benefits because he would rather be in work than out of it.

Although JSA on its own isn't much, if you have children than you get a raft full of Benefits to go with it, plus all or most of your rent and CT paid.

Whilst I have no wish to make people homeless, I don't see why they get extra money for more children. You don't if you're working (nor do you get a larger house subsidised by the taxpayer).. There should be a fixed amount for children, regardless of how many you have.

nannytone_2

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

My son once took a job that was initially LESS than his Benefits because he would rather be in work than out of it.

Although JSA isn't much, if you have children than you get a raft full of Benefits to go with it, plus all or most of your rent and CT paid.

Whilst I have no wish to make people homeless, I don't see why they get extra money for more children. You don't if you're working. There should be a fixed amount for children, regardless of how many you have.

its Ok to do that if you have no responsibilities.
once you have a mortgage and kids, you can't exist on less than benefit levels

seven-day-weekend

nannytone wrote: »

its Ok to do that if you have no responsibilities.
once you have a mortgage and kids, you can't exist on less than benefit levels

You can still claim some Benefits if you are on a low wage and have children.

nannytone_2

when you have parents etc that are willing/able to help you out, it is a totally different circumstance to someone that only has themselves to rely on.

seven-day-weekend

nannytone wrote: »

when you have parents etc that are willing/able to help you out, it is a totally different circumstance to someone that only has themselves to rely on.

We were not able to help him out financially at the time. We were living in Spain and had an income of less than £9k a year and although we had a few savings, they were not available to help him out.

Lanzarote1938

nannytone wrote: »

its Ok to do that if you have no responsibilities.
once you have a mortgage and kids, you can't exist on less than benefit levels

Surely top up benefits ensure that no one works for less than they would get with no one working?

nannytone_2

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

We were not able to help him out financially at the time. We were living in Spain and had an income of less than £9k a year and although we had a few savings, they were not available to help him out.

then i don't understand how it is less than benefits.
JSA is half that amount and he would have received housing benefit or LHA plus help with council tax

nannytone_2

Lanzarote1938 wrote: »

Surely top up benefits ensure that no one works for less than they would get with no one working?

there is very little available to the under 25's.

it isn't just the wage to be considered.
it is also the expense of travel on top that may make the wage below benefit level... something that the benefit system doesn't take into consideration