Angry re ESA

seven-day-weekend

nannytone wrote: »

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

It was less than JSA because it was only a few hours a week. He still got his CT Benefit.

sportsarb

If it was only a few hours a week then could he not have continued to sign on?

As I recall there is/was a £5 disregard too, so he would have been a miniscule better off.

I mean, I can understand not wanting the hassle but money is money.

missbiggles1

nannytone wrote: »

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

At the moment, under 25s can claim HB which could be quite substantial in the SE.

Mrshatch77

She doesn't earn much as its an apprentishipmso she gives me £140 a month and so I am still down £360:(

dekaspace

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Don't be silly.

However, no reason why an unemployed electrical engineer or surgeon shouldn't take a job as a cleaner or shop assistant.

Though people will misinterpret what I say to suit their own arguments, I agree. I think a suitable job is just one that doesn't mean you live hand to mouth, zero hour jobs may be good if you had enough hours on a constant basis to pay bills without the worry of not knowing if the following month you wont, as I have said in past I have a few friends who are very hard workers but they struggle to find work but with them its more they have personality flaws (both have had tests for autism and meant to get more) but as they can't pass interviews they can't get work, one worked himself into health problems, even working after he had mini strokes as his employer threatened to fire him and benefits said if he was fired he wouldnt get benefits.

My other friend has a engineering degree and was the only person in the UK offered a placement in Russia in his final year but couldn't go due to the vaccinations and passport issues in going across, he has as of now been unemployed 4 years despite going for cleaning and gardening jobs at NMW, though where he lives plays a part (North of Scotland middle of nowhere) and he has a dull. almost miserable personality.

Lanzarote1938 wrote: »

If I ruled the world then if there was a job available then there would be no choice. Take the job or lose the benefits.

Yep, and thats because you would never find yourself in that position and love that power to see other people suffer, I mean who cares if the job barely covers the rent and the person lives off bread and water and if an emergency arises even if its as small as washing machine breaks, then its that perosns own fault for not being in a position to pay.

sangie595 wrote: »

Sorry, but in the case you suggest it really is that simple! Why is it ok for someone else to work long hours, never see their kids, etc., to pay for someone else to sit around refusing to work on the same terms? Nobody has a right to expect others to fund their lifestyle choices, even if they are hand to mouth. If you want a better job, then there are the same options open to everyone. Work for it.

Just shows you how its so easy to judge without being in the situation

"lifestyle choices" shows how ignroant you can be, sure its a lifestyle choice to choose between eating and not eating isn't it!

Just as the usual idocity and ignorance about getting a "better job" I am sure people can magic a job out of their behinds, oh wait.

Go and live in areas where there is high unemployment, and/or migrants moving here and filling positions for any new jobs that actually come about and wages DROPPING, and then tell me you just have to work for it.

Its the double standards of the modern world, its ok to complain about how hard you have it, if someone refuses to put themselves into the same situation then somehow they are at fault.

Yes people should work but you are basically saying people should be glad to work even if they are living off bread and water, essentially one step short of workhouses.

Why not also complain about things like the NHS as that is paid or by taxes, or bus passes for the elderly?

seven-day-weekend

sportsarb wrote: »

If it was only a few hours a week then could he not have continued to sign on?

As I recall there is/was a £5 disregard too, so he would have been a miniscule better off.

I mean, I can understand not wanting the hassle but money is money.

He did continue to sign on. So could anyone else who took that job. Many would not have taken it because they were not better off.

Lanzarote1938

dekaspace wrote: »

Though people will misinterpret what I say to suit their own arguments, I agree. I think a suitable job is just one that doesn't mean you live hand to mouth, zero hour jobs may be good if you had enough hours on a constant basis to pay bills without the worry of not knowing if the following month you wont, as I have said in past I have a few friends who are very hard workers but they struggle to find work but with them its more they have personality flaws (both have had tests for autism and meant to get more) but as they can't pass interviews they can't get work, one worked himself into health problems, even working after he had mini strokes as his employer threatened to fire him and benefits said if he was fired he wouldnt get benefits.

My other friend has a engineering degree and was the only person in the UK offered a placement in Russia in his final year but couldn't go due to the vaccinations and passport issues in going across, he has as of now been unemployed 4 years despite going for cleaning and gardening jobs at NMW, though where he lives plays a part (North of Scotland middle of nowhere) and he has a dull. almost miserable personality.



Yep, and thats because you would never find yourself in that position and love that power to see other people suffer, I mean who cares if the job barely covers the rent and the person lives off bread and water and if an emergency arises even if its as small as washing machine breaks, then its that perosns own fault for not being in a position to pay.



Just shows you how its so easy to judge without being in the situation

"lifestyle choices" shows how ignroant you can be, sure its a lifestyle choice to choose between eating and not eating isn't it!

Just as the usual idocity and ignorance about getting a "better job" I am sure people can magic a job out of their behinds, oh wait.

Go and live in areas where there is high unemployment, and/or migrants moving here and filling positions for any new jobs that actually come about and wages DROPPING, and then tell me you just have to work for it.

Its the double standards of the modern world, its ok to complain about how hard you have it, if someone refuses to put themselves into the same situation then somehow they are at fault.

Yes people should work but you are basically saying people should be glad to work even if they are living off bread and water, essentially one step short of workhouses.

Why not also complain about things like the NHS as that is paid or by taxes, or bus passes for the elderly?

It seems you are one of life's pessimists....always someone else to blame.

dekaspace

Lanzarote1938 wrote: »

It seems you are one of life's pessimists....always someone else to blame.

And you are the type of person that blames the poor for not working hard enough.

Lanzarote1938

dekaspace wrote: »

And you are the type of person that blames the poor for not working hard enough.

I'm not actually. I have been very very poor. So poor that we couln't afford to eat the day before our weekly payday. So poor that I didn't have a new coat for 9 years and had just one pair of shoes, so poor that we had to use candles as we had no money for the slot meter. Doubt there is anyone that poor today. This was back in the day when you only had what you earned.

But I got off my bum and got qualifications to work in a field where there will always be work for qualified people. Never was without work and often worked a 60 hour week as the overtime paid for holidays and other treats like overpaying the mortgage.

dekaspace

Lanzarote1938 wrote: »

I'm not actually. I have been very very poor. So poor that we couln't afford to eat the day before our weekly payday. So poor that I didn't have a new coat for 9 years and had just one pair of shoes, so poor that we had to use candles as we had no money for the slot meter. Doubt there is anyone that poor today. This was back in the day when you only had what you earned.

But I got off my bum and got qualifications to work in a field where there will always be work for qualified people. Never was without work and often worked a 60 hour week as the overtime paid for holidays and other treats like overpaying the mortgage.

Oh poor you, being without food for one day, everything you have talked about happening to you has happened to me, and shall I add living in a house with heavy damp, having full heating on one day a year, one pair of school clothes a year that was too small and had to be sewn up often, no carpet in house until my dad was lucky enough to walk past a office getting refurbished and asked for the scraps from skip, I have been so poor I sat with a SINGLE candle for light, the ones you use for oil burners, living off pasta and slices of bread for days or more whilst having no heating on and just a radio for entertainment.

You have a limited mind and were in fact one of the lucky ones instead of what you think of yourself as just hard working.

You then talk about doing 60 hour weeks, well im sure in this world of zero hour contracts and minimum wage people have the same opportunities you had.

Mind telling me how you could afford to get qualifications if you were as poor as you claim?

And since you claimed to be poor at one point, then why didn't you get a job? Since thats what you are implying all that is needed to not be poor.