New Style JSA - what happens after 6 months?

gary83

MattMattMattUK said:

As for the rate itself that would need some serious evaluation, a rough estimate would be around £400 pcm for a single, under 35, rising to £600 for an over 35. A couple supplement of around £200, and similar for children. 

What happens financially between being 34 & 35 that means anyone who’s had their 35th birthday should get an extra £200 a month? That’s an extra 50% you’re proposing for those who’ve turned 35, why do they need such a large increase at that point?

calcotti

MattMattMattUK said:

If it were dow to me yes I would pay JSA to unemployed millionaires, if they have a million in liquid assets the chances are it will be more than paid back in their taxes anyway.

The only form of JSA available to new claimants is new style JSA which is not means tested and can therefore already be claimed by a millionaire should they wish to claim.

Tyton01

MattMattMattUK said:

@SXX
It really does depend and means testing is a complex issue, it is not a simple as removing it completely, but I also think that the £16k threshold in savings should not apply at all, regardless of a pandemic, if people have paid in then they should get the same support as others, regardless of how much they have in savings. I also do not agree with the difference in support for homeowners vs renters, if someone loses their job they should be supported to the same level regardless of if they are a renter or a homeowner, it should be equal and based on employment circumstances, not living arrangements.

In terms of the "support" people did or did not get, that is a somewhat more complicated situation, I understand that CJRS and SEISS were far from perfect, but they also did a lot of good as well. I say that as someone who has seen a huge drop in income and has not benefitted from either (or any government support). Whilst they were not means tested they were also capped, so those who had been paying in a lot of tax got proportionally less help than those who had been paying in less.

I agree with all of your comments . One other point is that regardless of how much savings you have which could £50 or £500,000 in the bank .When on JSA or Universal Credit you are supposed  to  to apply for Jobs and show prove of your commitments   and the sanctions would  apply  regardless of their bank account. So if the bloke with £500,000 in the bank is following the rules applying jobs showing prove that he wants to work why should he not get the full benefits, If he’s paid his way into the system such as Tax  and National insurance contributions.  This £16,000 threshold  can anyone explain why its at that amount or is it just a random figure?

 

and cont

Grumpy_chap

All threshold such as the £16k are largely random / nominal.
Same for personal allowance.
Same for the 2.5% part of the pension triple lock.  Why not 2% or 3%?
The trouble with all these numbers is they are introduced for good reason but then become sacrosanct.

Tyton01

Grumpy_chap said:

All threshold such as the £16k are largely random / nominal.
Same for personal allowance.
Same for the 2.5% part of the pension triple lock.  Why not 2% or 3%?
The trouble with all these numbers is they are introduced for good reason but then become sacrosanct.

Ok. Im sure if we ask some of these questions to a honest politician who does not waffle on or  !!!!!! like many do,we might get some straight answers . I’d love to know about some of the these random figures and how they decide them