Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by me!)
    It's also really demoralising to have to sign on when many possess (sp) the idea that the dole is for layabouts and good-for-nothings and feel that they (the job seeker) will be perceived as a failure by society.
    It is wrong. There is nothing wrong with it at all.

    You usually find it's people who have worked hard and lost their job and need some extra cash!
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amazingtrade)
    This was my point though. I have no problem with the genuine cases of people on the dole and I am sure this is most of them. Its just i don't consider myself to be a genuine case (yet) and its why I would not claim at this moment of time if I was entitled.
    But, if you were entitled you would be "a genuine case" :confused:

    (That last sentence confused me...)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happysunshine)
    I am right. I know you cannot claim it if you don't go on all the training/job schemes they throw at you and you cannot claim it if you walk out of your job, you have to lose it and probably not be sacked.

    Demoralising? Come on, even rich people have been on it! My uncle (who is rich as ****, decieded to claim it when he had lost his job just for some extra cash).

    It is your opinion, I accept that but are you not being a tad bit snobby about this issue? Okay, I would've said something similar not long ago but I've realised that some people need it and aren't just scrounging. Things would be worse off without it.
    I am not against anybody claiming it if it helps them, but if rich people claim it then surely this is wrong? The money should be spent on helping people who have lost their jobs pay their mortages etc.

    I am not really being snobby about it all, my parents nearly lost their house when my dad lost his job. I know whats it like not having any money, my dad setup a business so was never on the dole, but he was on income support while it was growing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by me!)
    But, if you were entitled you would be "a genuine case" :confused:

    (That last sentence confused me...)
    ok say I had 100k in my bank and lost my job, I don't need the dole as I have money to live off but I would still be entitled to claim right?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amb1)
    Would you go on the dole? Do you think people should take any job they can get and stop saying there are no jobs around?
    With some pride I can say that I have never had a day's unemployment benefit (or any other benefit for that matter) in my life.

    I would sooner flip burgers in MacDonald's than crawl on my knees before a government clerk and beg for $50/week (or however much it is)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amazingtrade)
    ok say I had 100k in my bank and lost my job, I don't need the dole as I have money to live off but I would still be entitled to claim right?
    IMO you should be able to. Why should you be punished for being prudent with your money?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viviki)
    Its a completely different ballgame now the welfare state is in no way the same as it was in the 70s there are so many helpful and practical schemes to get people into work now and it is very difficult to defraud the system although unfortunately no system is infallible.
    you're right. there are fairly stringent tests in place... and we can often spot those who are trying to commit benefit fraud. if you go into any jobcentre these days, there are millions of leaflets offering training and jobs.



    if memory doesn't fail me, are you a fellow civ servant? pm me for reply... don't wanna hijack the thread
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amazingtrade)
    ok say I had 100k in my bank and lost my job, I don't need the dole as I have money to live off but I would still be entitled to claim right?
    I think they take into account savings and your situation, but am unsure on the matter.

    Just did a bit of research and it's means tested, so you wouldn't be eligable if you had a 100k in savings.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Oh there are plenty of scroungers believe me who think that the world owes them a living. The problem is that if people have kids then the govt and social security in particular has a duty to protect those kids. Its definitely worth getting the free milk entitlement for children that you get if you are on benefits and that is something which is obviously aimed specifically at the child.
    But there are plenty of genuine cases and in my opinion if you have worked and paid into it then you are bloody entitled to something out of it if things get tight.
    You can get really helpful things such as money for a suit or appropriate clothing for an interview if you dont have it. Specialist equipment (within reason) that you might need to begin a specific job, transport money even. The Job centre is now proactive in getting disabled people back to work even if its only parttime if they wish to work which I hope they will continue because it can only be a good thing.
    Whilst I was living at home I didnt claim JSA when I was out of work because mum didnt mind cutting me some slack and I didnt feel that it was necessary but if I was leasing and suddenly was made redundant etc then I would certainly apply for benefits.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amazingtrade)
    ok say I had 100k in my bank and lost my job, I don't need the dole as I have money to live off but I would still be entitled to claim right?
    even savings do dwindle, esp if you had to pay for a relative to stay in a care home etc. it is worth applying for, even tho the govt may not agree that you are entitled.

    100k won't generate a large enough interest for you to live off. big savings do not mean anything.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by me!)
    I think they take into account savings and your situation, but am unsure on the matter.

    Just did a bit of research and it's means tested, so you wouldn't be eligable if you had a 100k in savings.
    Thats ok then. I am sorry if I some how caused any offense, I didn't mean to.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amazingtrade)
    I am not against anybody claiming it if it helps them, but if rich people claim it then surely this is wrong? The money should be spent on helping people who have lost their jobs pay their mortages etc.

    I am not really being snobby about it all, my parents nearly lost their house when my dad lost his job. I know whats it like not having any money, my dad setup a business so was never on the dole, but he was on income support while it was growing.
    I see what you are saying. I often think, why should rich folk send their children to grammar schools and waste a place when they can afford independent education? And then I remember that they too pay taxes and usually a lot more that it wouldn't be fair to not give them benefits of their taxation.

    Everyone will have lost their jobs and probably having difificulties pay their mortgages, so they all need helping. But we have to be as fair as possible and the current rules do make it quite fair. I'm not sure if the horror stories of people being on the dole for a decade with no job are true, and if they are then I'm sure they are rare.

    If you know what it's like then imagine your Dad not setting up a business. The £50 would've been very little but it would've helped. It isn't degrading at all to be on it, in fact if you have so little money you can't afford to be worried about what other folk think.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amazingtrade)
    Thats ok then. I am sorry if I some how caused any offense, I didn't mean to.
    No I'm not offended, why should I be?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amazingtrade)
    Thats ok then. I am sorry if I some how caused any offense, I didn't mean to.
    Why is that OK? If thee and me earn the same money but you put money away for a rainy day and I piss mine up against the wall why should I be rewarded with benefits for my shortsightedness and you be punished for your prudence and good sense?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viviki)
    Oh there are plenty of scroungers believe me who think that the world owes them a living. The problem is that if people have kids then the govt and social security in particular has a duty to protect those kids. Its definitely worth getting the free milk entitlement for children that you get if you are on benefits and that is something which is obviously aimed specifically at the child.
    But there are plenty of genuine cases and in my opinion if you have worked and paid into it then you are bloody entitled to something out of it if things get tight.
    You can get really helpful things such as money for a suit or appropriate clothing for an interview if you dont have it. Specialist equipment (within reason) that you might need to begin a specific job, transport money even. The Job centre is now proactive in getting disabled people back to work even if its only parttime if they wish to work which I hope they will continue because it can only be a good thing.
    Whilst I was living at home I didnt claim JSA when I was out of work because mum didnt mind cutting me some slack and I didnt feel that it was necessary but if I was leasing and suddenly was made redundant etc then I would certainly apply for benefits.
    Exactly that is the point I've been trying to make in this entire thread. My parents aren't rich (they earn £22k a year between them) but while I am living at home I am sure they would rather not take anything of me than me getting benifets I don't. If however I was renting my own place and lost my job I would need the dole money and would apply.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Why is that OK? If thee and me earn the same money but you put money away for a rainy day and I piss mine up against the wall why should I be rewarded with benefits for my shortsightedness and you be punished for your prudence and good sense?
    Because its never that simple, my parents have got no savings at all, they were never reckless with thier money, they never had holidays abroad, they didn't have a car for 10 years and when they did buy one it was an £800 Lada.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by me!)
    I think they take into account savings and your situation, but am unsure on the matter.

    Just did a bit of research and it's means tested, so you wouldn't be eligable if you had a 100k in savings.
    yes it is means tested.

    oh, and there are two types of JSA, just so everyone knows. one is contributory (so you're paid based on how much nat insurance you've paid in to account for your state pension), and the other is top-up based, where the govt calculate ur generated income, and make up the rest.

    and i'm fairly confident that in certain situations, you can still be eligible even with 100k. that's including mortgages/relatives who need you to look after them etc. tho i'm in the sister dept of the JSA/IS so i'm not certain.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Benefits are means tested but I actually agree with Howard on this one, especially with regards to pensioners it is a tough one but i dont think you should be punished for being prudent and saving as Howard said. Otherwise where is the incentive to be prudent. I think you should never be worse off for working. Did anyone see the bayliff programme the other night where the woman was working 2 jobs (on no benefits) and was only earning a few pounds more than she would have been if she had been not working and on benefit. But as a result of this she was having to pay council tax that she would have not had to pay had she been on benefits and it was actually getting her more in debt than not working. I think that this should not happen to anyone.
    Anyway these are the benefits available
    http://www.jobcentreplus.gov.uk/cms....eBenefits/1146

    http://www.jobcentreplus.gov.uk/cms....ts/497#caniget

    The second link is the lowdown on how much money you can get and how it is worked out.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amazingtrade)
    Because its never that simple, my parents have got no savings at all, they were never reckless with thier money, they never had holidays abroad, they didn't have a car for 10 years and when they did buy one it was an £800 Lada.
    That's a fair enough point. I'm not saying that people without savings have all squandered their money or that because they are poor/have few or little savings they are unvirtuous and undeserved. NOT AT ALL!

    WHAT I AM SAYING is that if two people earn roughly equal sums of money, yet one saves and the other fritters, why should the prudent saver be punished?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viviki)
    I think you should never be worse off for working. Did anyone see the bayliff programme the other night where the woman was working 2 jobs (on no benefits) and was only earning a few pounds more than she would have been if she had been not working and on benefit. But as a result of this she was having to pay council tax that she would have not had to pay had she been on benefits and it was actually getting her more in debt than not working. I think that this should not happen to anyone.
    I saw that. Did feel sorry for the woman but she could save a few more pennies if she gave up smoking and the dog. I know this sounds harsh but they aren't necessities and she would survive without them. As for the other people on that programme - they just wound me up. And a few of them couldn't even speak English properly, but they still had the cheek to not pay their way!!!!
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.