Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
northwestsmith2

Is Working Worth It?

Recommended Posts

Yes, of course they can. Not telling them about any asset here or abroad is fraud. It is posible to shield some wealth by putting it in a pension plan, but you need to do that well in advance of losing your job otherwise it may be deemed to be 'willful deprivation' resulting in the capital still being counted (guilty until you convince them of your innocence). Spending money on items that may help you back into work, such as a computer, car, or training course, may be an acceptable way to reduce capital.

AFAIK it's only holding a given level of cash savings that disqualify you from benefits - not having assets. Otherwise anyone with equity in their house wouldn't be entitled to suck from the state teat and that wouldn't go down well with the voters.

They do look at what you did with your cash just prior to claiming benefit and if they reckon you've spent it so that you qualify for benefits they can refuse to pay the jobseekers allowance when it enters the discretionary phase (the first six months you are entitled to, regardless).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason i still get out of bed to go to work every morning is the work ethic you mention, im perfectly capable of earning a living but its now got to the stage were i work a full week and i still cant afford to house myself, cant even rent except maybe a room as a lodger and im basicaly doing that at my parents anyway. its going to take me another 5 or 6 years of saving every penny i can on top of the 5 years ive already done and then maybe i might be able to buy a basic terrace outright (or maybe not).

My calculations are based on not missing a days work for the next 5 years which is highly unlikely as i have been laid off 4 times this year already plus my wages have taken a hit over the last two years and just this morning we were hearing rumours off more price drops on site. God knows how long i will keep trying to get a roof over my head because i know a lad who i work with walked off site not long ago because he had had enough of grafting all week long and knowing full well hes not getting anywhere, one of the other lads will be following him pretty soon because i can tell he is about to snap so there is no chance he will get through the winter on site if hes already nearly snapping.

The reason people go to work everyday is because thats what you are supposed to do and it also gives you a certain sense of pride, from what im starting to see around me this pride also applys to having the pi55 took out of you on a daily basis by bent construction firms, bent housing associations, bent benefit claimants, bent banks and last but not least the bent government. People i know feel like mugs for carrying on working (myself included) so your pride takes a hit everyday you go to work knowing full well you are getting nowhere fast whilst all the dodgy ones i mentioned are doing alright for themselves.

I think the government like the fact that britain has so many hard working proud people, they might change their minds when all those proud hard working people say **** it ive had enough and just stop working.

Long story short, most people i know are ready for throwing the towel in.

True, but many have not got the guts to do it, not only that on the whole people like to have a sense of worth, a value and a feeling of importance to a certain degree.....getting paid a wage, makes them feel good about themselves and worthy.

To jack the job in requires courage and a workable future plan.....many who do it don't regret it...but giving up work does not mean you stop working that would be giving up....work is good for you (and others), but only the work you choose to do, not the work you have to do or are forced to do. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AFAIK it's only holding a given level of cash savings that disqualify you from benefits - not having assets. Otherwise anyone with equity in their house wouldn't be entitled to suck from the state teat and that wouldn't go down well with the voters.

They do look at what you did with your cash just prior to claiming benefit and if they reckon you've spent it so that you qualify for benefits they can refuse to pay the jobseekers allowance when it enters the discretionary phase (the first six months you are entitled to, regardless).

It's not just cash savings that get captured - it's liquid assets. So that includes all stocks and shares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post. That's something else that you only need to consider if you work - contingency. Whereas if your income is entirely derived from benefits, you get free health care and your accommodation is state provided, your "rainy day" is always going to be at somebody else's expense.

It seems to me the benefits system penalises people for doing the right thing. So if, for instance, two people work, both on, say, £30k a year. A reasonable income. One person loses their job. The only thing they can get out of the state is contributory job seekers allowance for 6 months. It wouldn't matter what savings they had - they may not qualify for any other help, because their family income is still too much. But at the same time, they now have half the income they had before, down to £1885 a month. But say your mortgage is £975 a month. Pretty reasonable sort of mortgage if you have bought in, say, the last five years. And say the person who is still working lives in the south east, commutes to London and pays £240 a month for the train pass. That leaves £670 a month. Even for just two people without any children, £670 a month is very little income. You still have to cover things like the electricity, home insurance, gas, telephone - I consider all of those things essential expenditure.

If you are fortunate enough to have some rainy day money, sure, you can dip into them to tide you over. But here's something to consider. If you use your savings slowly and later on the other person also gets laid off, you might only get your 6 months contributory JSA. If I were in the situation of my partner losing their job, the first thing I would do is heap all my savings onto the mortgage. Well before "deprivation of capital" becomes an issue. And maybe even change to an interest only mortgage. At least that way, if you do both end up losing your jobs, you'll get income based job seekers allowance once the contribution based one runs out and help with the interest payments on the mortgage.

Even this, the interest payments, seems to only be available for a limited amount of time. Yet if you rent, your rent is paid for however long you need. I still think it is worth working even if you end up being laid off. If you manage to hold onto the house, you probably will be better off accommodation wise than someone having to rent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not just cash savings that get captured - it's liquid assets. So that includes all stocks and shares.

So basically you are allowed to own an expensive house and an expensive car with equity in them so long as you don't have any cash - but woe betide anyone who has saved or invested their income instead of splurging it?

Says it all about the system. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From January 2012, under 35s only get housing benefit to cover a room in a shared house not a 1 bed flat housing benefit rate.

Not if you are a single mum you won't. They will still get nice flats (nice compared to what most workers under 30 can afford anyway).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically you are allowed to own an expensive house and an expensive car with equity in them so long as you don't have any cash - but woe betide anyone who has saved or invested their income instead of splurging it?

Says it all about the system. <_<

This is where the system is wrong......you don't have to have bought the house only to have been able to borrow the money to buy it....when things go wrong you can stay living in a house you can't afford to live in...only because there are not enough social homes, places to live in but still able to afford to work.....you can't afford to work/get a job when the state pay the mortgage or rent...it is not cost effective....but you can't afford to move and it is difficult to feel secure when you don't know what is around the corner or what will hit you next..........is it not better for everyone to have a place they can call their own, freedom to move if they want to and pay for it themselves on a NMW. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One minute we are crticising the lack of work ethic and the next we seem to be agreeing there is no point in trying.

I actually quite like working, not sure what else I'd do with my life - Id just be bored. But I guess I am lucky as my education / experience has seemed to always open up doors that appear to be closed to others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, sure, you can earn £400 a week through the benefits system, though "earn" is surely a bit rich! Social policy appears to be geared towards getting married as soon as possible (thus avoiding the shared room only until you are 35 housing benefit rate) and having as many children as you can squeeze in.

I think it's the opposite - they want women to be dependant on the state rather than on men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One minute we are crticising the lack of work ethic and the next we seem to be agreeing there is no point in trying.

I actually quite like working, not sure what else I'd do with my life - Id just be bored. But I guess I am lucky as my education / experience has seemed to always open up doors that appear to be closed to others.

...there is always an open door, some doors are smaller than others, but people have a choice as to whether they can risk the walk through it, into the unknown......one door closes a new and better door opens. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...there is always an open door, some doors are smaller than others, but people have a choice as to whether they can risk the walk through it, into the unknown......one door closes a new and better door opens. ;)

People who depend on work by working for other people have no real choice when it comes to either obtaining or keeping employment. It's not their choice as to whether they get or keep a job. The only choice they have is to leave their job, not to get one in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...there is always an open door, some doors are smaller than others, but people have a choice as to whether they can risk the walk through it, into the unknown......one door closes a new and better door opens. ;)

Tell that to the inmates of Belsen

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They cannot outsource the bus driver. The bus driver is being paid to put up with drunks and abusive chavs smoking skunk, you are not.

They can - the bus driver is Polish.

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's the opposite - they want women to be dependant on the state rather than on men.

I think it would be true to say that the state doesn't want women - or men, for that matter - to be forced to stay in a relationship they no longer want because they are dependant on the other person to survive.

What I meant about policies which encourage getting married or co-habiting, is that, if you are a single person on some kind of benefit, the only way you are going to avoid only getting sufficient housing allowance for a room in shared housing is to get into a relationship. The system is biased against single people, including those who work. If you're between the ages of 16 to 24 and low paid, the only way you can get working tax credit, and therefore qualify for help with housing/council tax, is if you have a child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would be true to say that the state doesn't want women - or men, for that matter - to be forced to stay in a relationship they no longer want because they are dependant on the other person to survive.

What I meant about policies which encourage getting married or co-habiting, is that, if you are a single person on some kind of benefit, the only way you are going to avoid only getting sufficient housing allowance for a room in shared housing is to get into a relationship. The system is biased against single people, including those who work. If you're between the ages of 16 to 24 and low paid, the only way you can get working tax credit, and therefore qualify for help with housing/council tax, is if you have a child.

The trouble with children is that they are a false economy, sure they are fairly cheap to run in the first 2 years but my experience is they get more expensive as they grow older and by the time they reach school age most of your gin money is taken up clothing and feeding the blighters.

The great thing about being single and 16-24 is that you will get older, more experienced, earn more and improve your situation which is 10 times harder with a child in tow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble with children is that they are a false economy, sure they are fairly cheap to run in the first 2 years but my experience is they get more expensive as they grow older and by the time they reach school age most of your gin money is taken up clothing and feeding the blighters.

The great thing about being single and 16-24 is that you will get older, more experienced, earn more and improve your situation which is 10 times harder with a child in tow.

People in 3rd World countries see children as a good investment and they are dirt poor.

Given the uk is heading for a third world economy, having 10 kids is probably the best way of ensuring you don't starve or freeze to death in your old age.

Don't think there's much chance of any of us getting a decent pension in 15-20 years time.

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People in 3rd World countries see children as a good investment and they are dirt poor.

Given the uk is heading for a third world economy, having 10 kids is probably the best way of ensuring you don't starve or freeze to death in your old age.

Don't think there's much chance of any of us getting a decent pension in 15-20 years time.

:blink:

provided theres enough in the kitty of the welfare state.

otherwise you going to be eating a lot of pigs trotters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble with children is that they are a false economy, sure they are fairly cheap to run in the first 2 years but my experience is they get more expensive as they grow older and by the time they reach school age most of your gin money is taken up clothing and feeding the blighters.

The great thing about being single and 16-24 is that you will get older, more experienced, earn more and improve your situation which is 10 times harder with a child in tow.

True, but vast numbers of children offer economies of scale that aren't really available if you have a couple of children. By the time the younger ones are interested in bratz/DS/Wii etc, the older ones have grown out of them. It's just as easy to cook pasta for nine people as it is for four, and possibly not much more expensive, given the bulk buying one would be doing. Yet the government insist that children 3,4,5,6,and 7 should receive the same child tax credits as children 1 and 2. Though I note that the government has restricted the value of housing it will provide in the future, so perhaps children 5,6,and 7 could sleep out in the shed. Or the parents could camp in the garden, leaving the house for the children.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People in 3rd World countries see children as a good investment and they are dirt poor.

That's because they live in a country where they need their kids to look after them when they get old. In the UK they side-stepped that problem by getting other people's kids to pay for them.

According to a TV show a few weeks back a kid costs about $200,000 to raise with a middle-class lifestyle in America. That makes them a financial liability, not a benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People in 3rd World countries see children as a good investment and they are dirt poor.

Given the uk is heading for a third world economy, having 10 kids is probably the best way of ensuring you don't starve or freeze to death in your old age.

Don't think there's much chance of any of us getting a decent pension in 15-20 years time.

:blink:

If you are doing real work in a business you own, kids can be great. Like when boys hit 13 or 14 they can work say putting in tile floors right alongside Dad. And Dad can charge them out at say £35 an hour.. and pay them £12 an hour.

Dad's retirement is his sons take over managing the business one day. And gradually sells ownership to them through his retirement.

For the sons one day it is the best gift ever, they get to be owners in a business with a large clientelle built up over many years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are doing real work in a business you own, kids can be great. Like when boys hit 13 or 14 they can work say putting in tile floors right alongside Dad. And Dad can charge them out at say £35 an hour.. and pay them £12 an hour.

Dad's retirement is his sons take over managing the business one day. And gradually sells ownership to them through his retirement.

For the sons one day it is the best gift ever, they get to be owners in a business with a large clientelle built up over many years.

That could be THE ANSWER. Where you may see rolling fields, I see somewhere that just hasn't been tiled. Where you see playing fields, I see a space devoid of faux slate. This is it, come on England! Tile for Victory!!;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That could be THE ANSWER. Where you may see rolling fields, I see somewhere that just hasn't been tiled. Where you see playing fields, I see a space devoid of faux slate. This is it, come on England! Tile for Victory!!;)

Well we can't all be gentleman (or grand-lady, as the case may be) farmers, raking in hundreds of thousands of pounds each year via agricultural subsidies. That money up in Scotland has enabled many aristocrat "impoverished" farmers to renovate and upgrade their substantial dwellings and landscape their gardens (after all we don't want to actually see the pesky little blighters from the house windows, do we!). Presumably they needed tilers to do it.

The fact remains though, that the "continuous countryside" neither provides much employment or housing. It's fine up here in Scotland, because most of that sort of land is out of the way, well away from where the majority of the population want to live. But down in England, where vast numbers of people live in sub standard housing, e.g. terrace houses where the drain from the kitchen is open and every morning slugs crawl up through the pipework and where walls are so damp the wallpaper falls off (inner city - Manchester) , surely we should be building affordable housing, even if it's on so called green belt land?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are doing real work in a business you own, kids can be great. Like when boys hit 13 or 14 they can work say putting in tile floors right alongside Dad. And Dad can charge them out at say £35 an hour.. and pay them £12 an hour.

Dad's retirement is his sons take over managing the business one day. And gradually sells ownership to them through his retirement.

For the sons one day it is the best gift ever, they get to be owners in a business with a large clientelle built up over many years.

All the lads of our joint venture Directors in IT Services work at weekends in the business. £110 a shift for them 3 times better than a bar job. Because a joint venture (6 directors) probably 15-20 of them between uni/jobs etc. Also lads and lasses from employees of the two companies and the odd clients. Makes for a very healthy 'village' where work rate is high, standards are high and even though they are low key (all part of the role in my view) other contractors soon get a feel for who they are and hence the shift invariable goes smoothly.

It was an unexpected by product of creating the business but stops them especially the 19 year olds plus from keep putting their hands in their Dad's pockets. Now you still lend them money but just send a mail to our financial controller to treat as an advance and take out of their pay packet and pay back to Dad, very effective.

I can see one or more of them running it in ten years time.

Edited by Greg Bowman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's because they live in a country where they need their kids to look after them when they get old. In the UK they side-stepped that problem by getting other people's kids to pay for them.

According to a TV show a few weeks back a kid costs about $200,000 to raise with a middle-class lifestyle in America. That makes them a financial liability, not a benefit.

I spent more than that on their education, but then mine are worth investing in don't know about yours.... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 295 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.