Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Jobseekers Allowance - Unfair For Savers


dave

Recommended Posts

0
HOLA441

With 35K in savings, it is right he doesn't receive any benefits, he can use that money to tie him over, the notion or premise that saving should be protected is nonsense, why should he be a burden to the state when i'm sure he can get a job... has he tried that approach yet ?

In regards to incapacity benefits in the above thread, i totally agree. I know of someone who claims disability living allowance, and in the not too distant future will inherit some money. Once they inherit this money their benefits are stopped, now this person obviously didn't choose to be disabled and is generally misfortunate in this respect, however i'm happy that my contributions will aid as long as they're not taking the piss, and i know plenty of people that do scam the system and will try to get everything they can. That is just greed and distgusting.

Now back to the person with 35K sitting in the bank, my argument would be that the disabled person shouldn't be penalised for inheriting money, because they have no opportunity to earn, and they should receive some concession of some sort. However, Mr 35k claiming unemployment benefit makes me feel a bit sick to be honest, he has every opportunity to work and find work, and the fact he is living at home is more evidence that he can get by. I know this is very subjective but I think i speak for the majority of people.

Greed is why he is claiming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1
HOLA442
Guest pioneer31
The real scandal in this country is the 2.6 (2.7?) million people on 'incapacity' benefit.

it certainly is. How does anyone prove depression or back pain?

and I agree that doctors sign sick notes willy nilly. They also dish out antidepressants willy nilly. Not a good idea. I'm not convinced that they're the best treatment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2
HOLA443
Guest pioneer31
With 35K in savings, it is right he doesn't receive any benefits.

Sorry I don't agree.

First of all, the dishing out of benefits doesn't encourage anyone to save or dig themselves out of a hole. So if I think I'm going to lose my job the best course of action would be to buy myself a 35k flash car etc.

My grandmother was penalised in the 1960's for saving, she had worked all her life and stumbled upon hard times in later life. Because she had some savings (not a fortune) they told her to sod off. I can't elaborate any more on what she said because I will be accused of all sorts but let's just say that her life's work and savings accounted for nothing whilst a person she knew hadn't paid nearly enough into the system was receiving a wad of notes large enough to choke a horse.

She swore that she would never save again.

Secondly......

Cash in the bank isn't the only indicator of wealth. There are people who have assets like gold in the form of jewellery for instance, worth thousands...

There are some cultures who have certain practices that I don't feel are accounted for on benefits forms. You can be cash poor but asset rich.

Before anyone gets on my case, I know of one such example.

So my point is . if you have to declare cash savings on a DSS form then you should also declare the amount of gold and/or jewellery you have. Of course proving this from the DSS's point of view is rather difficult

so....................

if you anticipate future unemployment > stash all your cash into something 'invisible' as it were.

The threshold at the moment is £8,000 I think. Hardly a fortune. So if you have that much you are expected to wade through it all (it wouldn't take long) until you have zero in the bank.

Why just have nothing in the bank to start with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3
HOLA444
Sorry I don't agree.

First of all, the dishing out of benefits doesn't encourage anyone to save or dig themselves out of a hole. So if I think I'm going to lose my job the best course of action would be to buy myself a 35k flash car etc.

Why just have nothing in the bank to start with?

Fair comment, I think i'll retract my comments i think i'm more agrieved at people leeching the system at the first opportunity, at least try and find a job first to carry yourself for a bit before claiming every benefit under the sun was more of my concern.

I don't have anywhere near that level of saving, a modest 5k, if i lost my job i'd carry myself for a while before i realise it's time to go to the doll office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4
HOLA445

He is now between jobs and wants to claim jobseekers allowance. Which is apparantly means tested, and with nearly 35k saved up, he is only likely to get his national insurance contributions paid.

This man IS financially secure wth £35K in the bank - it amazes me why the hell he needs to claim any financial benefit at all or has the gall to even think about claiming. Sorry to be mean spirited, but I hope he gets no help. If this guy had no savings, then, yes, he deserves all the help he can get. GREED comes in many forms, from overvalued houses and myopic greedy vendors ....to those like our chap above. Let's see Greed for what it is and acknowledge it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5
HOLA446

Savings can only affect your claim for benefit if you are claimng income based support, not contribution based, which is dependendent on the tax contributions you have paid to date. Also if you have money from the actual sale of a house you do not get penalised in any way, so why should you get penalised for having savings you intend to use as a house deposit ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6
HOLA447

I agree Dave, the limits should be raised to something which you could live off the interest with. For example it's unfair to exclude someone who's saved up 35k which yields a pittance in interest, but give someone who's blown all their dosh benefits.

At the same time you wouldn't expect someone with 500k in the bank to be able to claim benefits as you could live off the interest.

I think they should raise the threshold to at least 250k. The incentives to save are pathetic at the moment, this would help give some back.

It isn't unfair to claim benefits with 35k in the bank, it hasn't even kept anywhere near the pace with the cost of housing therefore is virtually worthless if he's looking to move out. If people are expected to live off such measly savings as 35k then it's not unfair to expect people to sell their houses to live off too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7
HOLA448
The incentives to save are pathetic at the moment

I agree, but upping the benefits criteria so that all and sundry can claim it is not the way to go about remedying that. The benefits bill is big enough as it is.

It isn't unfair to claim benefits with 35k in the bank

It is when he's living at home and has no living costs to speak of. There are many people in much worse situations than the OP's acquaintance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8
HOLA449

I know a chap in his fifties who got a slight injury at work which he pretends stops him working. He actually moonlights for cash in hand.

He is selling his 3 bed semi for £190000 in order to move to a £300000! I dont know how theyve worked this one, but people like this are always ahead of the rules.

He gets all sorts of benefits including the mortgage interest paid.

His wife has apparently now injured herself at work and is also in receipt of benefits.

They both expect large claims to be paid out by thier employers based around the fact they say they were not given adequate training on how to avoid risks at work!

A freind of mine challenged asked them whether they felt guilty about taking the state for a ride and they replied 'if its there take it'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9
HOLA4410

zz, so what if he lives at home? He's obviously sacrificing freedoms to save, now is being penalised for doing so, this is grossly unfair. Lets get this in perspective, 35k has kept him up with about 6 months of 2003 house price inflation, it's a pittance and not enough to live off. The 6k threshold is a joke.

Someone in government should calculate how much is required to live off, and then benefits should be paid to everyone who doesn't earn this amount from other forms of income. Not impose a cut off at a stupidly small amount.

We could easily cut the benefits bill by stopping fraud, and also only giving benefits for the first 2 children. If people want huge families they should pay for it themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10
HOLA4411
He is in exactly the same position many STR'ers are going to find themselves in should they be made redundant or just lose their jobs.

The will be shelling out 1k a month of their savings in rent, whereas a home owner only has to pay the interest on his mortgage for nine months then the DSS take over and pay it for him.

Buying a house in a recession is a good deal provided you have 9 months of cash to get the the DSS thresholds.

In reality though , laurejon, few people are out of work for 9 months......most people i know get so sick of being out of work they take any old low paid job after 2 or 3 months.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11
HOLA4412
35k has kept him up with about 6 months of 2003 house price inflation, it's a pittance and not enough to live off.

NOR IS IT SUPPOSED TO BE! IF IT WAS ENOUGH TO LIVE OFF DON'T YOU THINK EVERYONE WOULD BE ON THE BLOODY DOLE! NOR IS IT SUPPOSED TO KEEP YOU ABREAST OF HOUSE PRICE INFLATION!!!!!!!

Someone in government should calculate how much is required to live off

What right does the govt have to say what kind of lifestyle someone should lead?

benefits should be paid to everyone

With you as Chancellor, Simon, this country would be bankrupt within a matter of months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12
HOLA4413
13
HOLA4414
14
HOLA4415
15
HOLA4416
16
HOLA4417

Yes, I would (claim JSA). That's what it is there for. What it is NOT there for, however, is to reward savers/punish non-savers, debate the merits of financial prudence versus profligacy, how people live their lives etc etc. It is there to get people back to work, end of story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17
HOLA4418

Well to put it another way, we are not entitled to Child Tax Credits because of our high savings. Others, who either own a house, or blew all their savings on fancy expensive cars, are entitled because these 'assets' are not taken into consideration when handing out credits (aka benefits in non-Gordon-Brown speak).

So our next door neighbours have expensive cars, and full tax credits, while we have a naff (but serviceable) car, with the corresponding savings from not having wasted our money, and no credits

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18
HOLA4419

Laurejon you are wrong. The Benefits agency pay you nothing towards your mortgage anymore, interest or otherwise and they haven't done for years which is exactly why people take out repayments insurance. I signed on for three months a few years ago when I had owned a house and had lost my job.

You are only eligible for housing benefit if you rent and even then it is means tested.

With regard to JSA, there are 2 types. Income based and contribution based. Provided you have made enough NI contributions in the previous tax year, you can claim 6 months of contribution based JSA without any means testing whatsoever. After that you can claim income based JSA but this is based on income, savings etc.

If you've got £35k in savings then I don't believe you should be entitled to benefits. It makes a bit of a mockery of the social security system although I concede it seems a bit unfair and that £35k of equity should be treated in the same way as having £35k in cash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19
HOLA4420

Re the argument about payments towards mortgages in the event of unemployment, This seems to be about as definitive a ruling as I can find .

http://www.cml.org.uk/servlet/dycon/zt-ml/..._mppi_statehelp

Surprises me as I thought you got nothing whatsoever, but as I see it , you get help after 39 weeks.

I did enquire about insuring my mortgage payments a couple of years ago but at that time the premiums for my job (IT) were sky high so didnt bother...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20
HOLA4421
Yes, I would (claim JSA). That's what it is there for. What it is NOT there for, however, is to reward savers/punish non-savers, debate the merits of financial prudence versus profligacy, how people live their lives etc etc. It is there to get people back to work, end of story.

Here Here! Wise words Z

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...
21
HOLA4422
Well, why should my taxes go to support someone with a fixed asset worth hundreds of thousands of pounds (they can sell it and buy something cheaper) OR £35k in savings (they can spend it)? THEY DON'T NEED SUPPORT!

Fully agree, but then again, we pay for this everyday, so why should we not have the right to claim what we put back in? If they dropped tax and made it more cost effective, perhaps I'd be more on your side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22
HOLA4423
  • 1 month later...
23
HOLA4424

The whole of the taxation and benifits system seems a bit peculiar to me, to say the list. It encourages laziness and punishes hard working folks.

Make a decision to study and you are going to be punished by tution fees. Make it worse by working at the same time and you won't get any support. Become highly skilled, start earning marginally above the average and be punished by 40% tax, as if just by earning more you're not already contributing more within a flat tax rate.

Be good at what you do and you will never be out of a job market, never have a change to use the benefit system you are paying for with your hard work. Even given that you could loose your job you won't be able to get any benifits, specially if you were prudent and saved. Get a tax break on some of your interest payments, pay 40% on interest from savings. Being highly skilled spend more time keeping your skills up to date, work longer hours, commute longer distances. There are less highly skilled jobs and they are more specific, hence leaving a smaller chance of finding something 15 minutes drive away.

Additionally, have labour goverment bring more highly skilled immigrants, keeping the wages down. On the other hand who would, in their right mind, go through the endless studies to get a marginally better lifestyle for yourself and your family? Since:

- Be low skilled and pay little tax.

- Spend it all and get benefits.

- Get a job near your home, do not study and you'll get more of free time you can spend with your mates watching football and drinking beer.

- Do not study, since it brings the tution fees and takes time and effort to pay off. It also reduces the amout you can further borrow, which is important, because...

- Instead, increase the quality of your lifestyle instantly through borrowing, there are a lot of cheap cash. Do not save. Cash is cheap, no one is gonna pay you much for your savings.

- Have unions to protect your interests, instead of learning and becoming more competitive on a job market, making the economy more competitive as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24
HOLA4425

<snip from an earlier post>

The real scandal in this country is the 2.6 (2.7?) million people on 'incapacity' benefit.

Anyone else constantly stumbling across 'incapacitated' people in the street?

<ends>

I'm one of the millions of disabled people in the country and yes, people are stumbling over me in the streets. They are knocking me down in the streets, on the buses and just about every where. Because I look "normal" people assume that I am slow because I am either stupid, drunk or deliberately clumsy. If I am in a wheelchair people are quite happy to bump into me and obstruct me because it's unlikely I'll be able to stop them.

Sadly, at times I am even too weak to be able to verbally defend myself.

I think the scandal of the incapacity benefit is also a scandal but for different reasons. People who have the same disease as I, are not being treated or cured on the NHS. Therefore we have thousands of people who would love to work and love to be well, stuck on the scrapheap.

Do you really think that being disabled and living in poverty is a lifestyle choice for serious numbers of people? I wouldn't like to do it and I fight every day to support myself.

At one stage the govt influenced doctors to put older workers in areas of unemployment onto IB instead of adding them to the unemployment stats.

Now back to the original point. IB is also means tested and my council means tests disabled people who ask for help. This means that young disabled people who are saving to buy a home (like me) are rejected in favour of providing care for elderly people who own houses.

Just to give you an example. My old landlord has an elderly non-working husband. They have put all their money into property and have assets including BTL. They also get free council care for the husband because they don't keep their savings in cash.

They just keep buying property.

I however, work and support myself. My savings for a home means that I don't get the care and I need. The more I need to spend on care the less I have for a home. I can't even cut my own toe-nails or bathe on a daily basis. The property rich landlord gets council care to do that and a paid carerr.

Edited by Flopsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information