Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
timebandit

The Future State Of Welfare With John Humphrys

Recommended Posts

Get ready for the heavy ramping of this programme next week on the BBC

Lets hope this will be a balanced report? ;)

In February 2011 David Cameron announced a welfare reform bill he described as the most fundamental, ambitious and radical since the benefit system began. The cost of benefit, he said, had gone up by nearly £60bn in the last decade. Critics say that the welfare state is in crisis.

And yet at the same time, there's resounding support among the British public for welfare. In an Ipsos MORI poll commissioned for this programme, 92% of adults agreed with the statement that it is important to have a benefits system to provide a safety net for anyone that needs it.

John Humphrys travels the country to talk to the people with the most to lose: people on incapacity benefit; the long-term unemployed; people on housing benefit; lone parents. Are they prepared for the harsher future ahead? He returns to the area where he was born - Splott in Cardiff - to show how attitudes to work and welfare have changed in his lifetime. When he was growing up, a man who didn't work was regarded as a pariah; today, one in four of the working-age population in Splott is on some form of benefit. John also visits America, where 15 years ago they embarked on what has been called a 'welfare revolution'. Is this more punitive model where the UK heading? He looks at specific reforms the Government has in mind or has begun already.

Humphrys concludes that the public don't like what they see as a growing sense of entitlement among some groups claiming benefits, and politicians respond to the public mood. He argues that there is strong consensus across political divides, and that reform would edge the UK back towards the original Beveridge vision of welfare.

BBC TWO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unemployment benefit in 1931 was reduced from 18 shilling to 15s and 3d. 15s and 3d in today's money relative to gdp ppp is £191.

My 'dole' is £53.45. It's £130 or so when you factor in housing benefit and council tax benefit. Even more when you consider free healthcare (prescriptions, dentist, opticians), further more still when you take into account travel discounts and assign a value to leisure time.

On a like for like (GDP PPP) basis though, it's less than what it was back then.

The even had a form of housing benefit paid in addition to standard 'dole' back then too.

Last month my housing benefit increased by 7%! Next year it will increase by 7%.

I'm not too fussed about working for a wage, I just want an allotment to rent, then I'll dig for victory!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest spp

Unemployment benefit in 1931 was reduced from 18 shilling to 15s and 3d. 15s and 3d in today's money relative to gdp ppp is £191.

My 'dole' is £53.45. It's £130 or so when you factor in housing benefit and council tax benefit. Even more when you consider free healthcare (prescriptions, dentist, opticians), further more still when you take into account travel discounts and assign a value to leisure time.

On a like for like (GDP PPP) basis though, it's less than what it was back then.

The even had a form of housing benefit paid in addition to standard 'dole' back then too.

Last month my housing benefit increased by 7%! Next year it will increase by 7%.

I'm not too fussed about working for a wage, I just want an allotment to rent, then I'll dig for victory!

I hear about single mothers getting housing benefit, but how does this work for males?

Is there like some kind of waiting list if you get made unemployed?

If you find a job are you immediately expected to pay for the housing?

If you don't mind me asking...

Edit: Who isn't eligible

You can't usually get Housing Benefit if:

you have savings of over £16,000 - What if you are a certain 'bug'...taking you over the £16k level? How far back do they check your bank details?

you live in the home of a close relative - What if you conveniently decided you were unable to live with this person? What if you were in private rental accom before being made unemployed? what if you have a mortgage?

you're a full-time student (unless you're disabled or have children) - Why not?

Edited by spp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unemployment benefit in 1931 was reduced from 18 shilling to 15s and 3d. 15s and 3d in today's money relative to gdp ppp is £191.

That's very interesting. It would be appreciated if you could provide a source for the 1931 data.

Edited by CrashConnoisseur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last month my housing benefit increased by 7%! Next year it will increase by 7%.

That's because it's (both current and previous) government policy to increase council and Housing Association rents above the rate of inflation (as measured by RPI). They then complain about HB spiralling "out of control" when the majority of the rise is due to their own policy (in the Private Rental Sector "average housing benefit rent levels fell by 1%" from November 2008 to February 2010 after adjusting for the shift in relative caseload from north to south. [1]).

1. 'Leading the market? A research report into whether Local Housing Allowance (LHA) lettings are feeding rent inflation.' [september 2011]:

http://www.cih.org/policy/CIHBPF-August2011.pdf

1. Executive summary

[...snip...]

1.10 [Chartered Institute of Housing] and the [british Property Federation] have collaborated on research to review available data on the LHA to see what if any effect it has on rent inflation. In particular we looked at whether the increase in average rents for LHA claims could be caused by other factors such as changes in the composition of the caseload.

1.11 Caseload composition can cause an uplift in average rent levels if the proportion of claimants shifts from between regions where rents are relatively inexpensive (such as the North and the Midlands) to more expensive areas (London and the rest of Southern England).

1.12 Likewise a shift in the composition of the caseload away from single person households towards a higher proportion of families would also cause some uplift in average rents because larger properties are more expensive.

1.13 A simple comparison of the LHA rates at the start and end dates will show whether rents levels have generally risen or fallen and the size of any caseload effect can be estimated by superimposing the caseload characteristics at the start date onto the LHA levels at the end date.

1.14 We also tested whether there was any evidence for a relationship between the proportions of the market that is let to housing benefit claimants and LHA inflation by applying a standard statistical test.

1.15 We found that between November 2008 and February 2010 the number of areas in in which LHA rates had fallen outnumbered those in which there had been an increase by a ratio of more than 2:1.

1.16 This pattern was repeated in all the regions and if anything was more marked in London and the rest of southern England. This trend was also stronger in the one to three bedroom property sizes that together account for over 85% of all claims.

1.17 The increase in average rent levels during this period is entirely due to a shift in the relative distribution of the caseload from the North and the Midlands towards London and Southern England. After adjusting for this „caseload effect‟ average housing benefit rent levels fell by 1% (instead of the reported 3% rise).

1.18 We found no evidence for a relationship between the LHA inflation rates and the proportion of the market that is let to housing benefit tenants.

1.19 Overall it seems that LHA rates do broadly reflect what is happening in the wider (non-housing benefit) market and this should not be surprising because LHA rates are set from data that excludes housing benefit lettings. There is no evidence to support the contention that the LHA is inflationary or produces a feedback loop.

1.20 Our findings call into question the Government‟s strategy that it can use its power as a bulk purchaser to force landlords to reduce their rents. If LHA rates do not contribute towards rent inflation then conversely they cannot be used as a tool to force rents down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear about single mothers getting housing benefit, but how does this work for males?

Is there like some kind of waiting list if you get made unemployed?

If you find a job are you immediately expected to pay for the housing?

If you don't mind me asking...

Edit: Who isn't eligible

You can't usually get Housing Benefit if:

you have savings of over £16,000 - What if you are a certain 'bug'...taking you over the £16k level? How far back do they check your bank details?

you live in the home of a close relative - What if you conveniently decided you were unable to live with this person? What if you were in private rental accom before being made unemployed? what if you have a mortgage?

you're a full-time student (unless you're disabled or have children) - Why not?

Housing benefit (HB) is means tested, by both income and capital (£6-16k - £1 benefit reduction per week per £250 capital above £6k). LHA (Local housing allowance) also. I claim housing benefit as I am a secure tenant of an RSL (registered social landlord). I have 0 'capital'. Each man/family unit has a 'basic benefit income' - in my case - £53.45 JSA (under 25 rate) + £5 income disreagrd. Because I'm on dole I get full HB and ful CTB (council tax benefit). I could earn £5 on top of dole before I start to lose benefits (first of all JSA is reduced at a rate of 100%) - that is to say if I earn a fiver a week its in my pocket, and i get £53.45 from DWP+HB+CTB, If I earn 53.45, I'd still get £5 of JSA+full HB + CTB

A single mother would get JSA (or incapaicty benefit - which is being phased out... or ESA - same as JSA but you don't have to 'sign on') + Child benefit + any DLA elements for her/her children + Child Tax Credits and an income disregard of £20. If she get that or less she get full hb/lha at the applicable rate.

If I find a job I must immediately pay for housing. Anything I earn past my threshold of £53.45+£5 I must pay 65% of income on paying off my housing benefit, and 20% on paying off my council tax benefit - cumulatively 85% of income is lost to reduced benefit. (I get to keep 15% of earnings past the threshold till they are cleared - until NI and tax kicks in.. when I lose 85%+ 32%)

You get paid HB/LHA & CTB from the day you claim. ALWAYS claim when your entitled!

Does that make any sense?

Another way to look at it...

I get £53.45 + HB + CTB.

If I earn £5; I get £5 + £53.45 + HB + CTB

If I earn £53.45; I get £53.45 + £5 + HB + CTB

If I earn £58.45; I get £58.45 + HB + CTB

Any £1 past £58.45 I lose 65p HB and 20p CTB till I no longer receive benefit.

_____

However, due to being under 25, once I lose HB/CTB I forefeit the right to free prescriptions etc. as I am ineligible for working tax credit due to age, if over 25 I'd get WTC and that would 'passport' me to free prescriptions etc.

1p a week of WTC passports you... 1p a week of HB passports you (but I think minimum claim is 50 pence a week)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's very interesting. It would be appreciated if you could provide a source for the 1931 data.

http://www.salfordonline.com/salfordvideos.php?func=viewdetails&vdetails=26213

If you search for 'the battle of bexley square' you will find the info quite easily ;)

80 years ago this October 1st just gone, they introduced the means test after the wall st crash.

I educate you ;) If it wasn't for me being regularly unemployed due to FIAT, speculative bubbles and loose lending destroying our economy, I would never have seeked to learn this information ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A single mother would get JSA...

Single mothers or fathers with a child under seven (under five from 2012) would normally claim Income Support as they are not required to look for work. If they have older children then it's usually JSA or ESA as outlined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Single mothers or fathers with a child under seven (under five from 2012) would normally claim Income Support as they are not required to look for work. If they have older children then it's usually JSA or ESA as outlined.

Aye, thanks for clarifying, there are that many different names for the same things it's hard to remember them all. Income support = 25+ rate of JSA in monetary terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.salfordon...&vdetails=26213

If you search for 'the battle of bexley square' you will find the info quite easily ;)

80 years ago this October 1st just gone, they introduced the means test after the wall st crash.

I educate you ;) If it wasn't for me being regularly unemployed due to FIAT, speculative bubbles and loose lending destroying our economy, I would never have seeked to learn this information ;)

Some questions:

1. Was that the rate paid all over the UK? (I think a national rate only came into place after 1931).

2.How many weeks were unemployed people paid that much? (I don't think it was for ever - I think there was a limit).

3. How many weeks did they have to pay into their unemployment insurance for when they were working to be able to claim this unemployment benfit? (I think there was a set amount of weeks they had to pay in, before claiming the benefit when they were out of work)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Housing benefit (HB) is means tested, by both income and capital (£6-16k - £1 benefit reduction per week per £250 capital above £6k). LHA (Local housing allowance) also. I claim housing benefit as I am a secure tenant of an RSL (registered social landlord). I have 0 'capital'. Each man/family unit has a 'basic benefit income' - in my case - £53.45 JSA (under 25 rate) + £5 income disreagrd. Because I'm on dole I get full HB and ful CTB (council tax benefit). I could earn £5 on top of dole before I start to lose benefits (first of all JSA is reduced at a rate of 100%) - that is to say if I earn a fiver a week its in my pocket, and i get £53.45 from DWP+HB+CTB, If I earn 53.45, I'd still get £5 of JSA+full HB + CTB

A single mother would get JSA (or incapaicty benefit - which is being phased out... or ESA - same as JSA but you don't have to 'sign on') + Child benefit + any DLA elements for her/her children + Child Tax Credits and an income disregard of £20. If she get that or less she get full hb/lha at the applicable rate.

If I find a job I must immediately pay for housing. Anything I earn past my threshold of £53.45+£5 I must pay 65% of income on paying off my housing benefit, and 20% on paying off my council tax benefit - cumulatively 85% of income is lost to reduced benefit. (I get to keep 15% of earnings past the threshold till they are cleared - until NI and tax kicks in.. when I lose 85%+ 32%)

You get paid HB/LHA & CTB from the day you claim. ALWAYS claim when your entitled!

Does that make any sense?

Another way to look at it...

I get £53.45 + HB + CTB.

If I earn £5; I get £5 + £53.45 + HB + CTB

If I earn £53.45; I get £53.45 + £5 + HB + CTB

If I earn £58.45; I get £58.45 + HB + CTB

Any £1 past £58.45 I lose 65p HB and 20p CTB till I no longer receive benefit.

_____

However, due to being under 25, once I lose HB/CTB I forefeit the right to free prescriptions etc. as I am ineligible for working tax credit due to age, if over 25 I'd get WTC and that would 'passport' me to free prescriptions etc.

1p a week of WTC passports you... 1p a week of HB passports you (but I think minimum claim is 50 pence a week)

Have you ever thought about becoming an accountant? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some questions:

1. Was that the rate paid all over the UK? (I think a national rate only came into place after 1931).

2.How many weeks were unemployed people paid that much? (I don't think it was for ever - I think there was a limit).

3. How many weeks did they have to pay into their unemployment insurance for when they were working to be able to claim this unemployment benfit? (I think there was a set amount of weeks they had to pay in, before claiming the benefit when they were out of work)

LAZY BOY - DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some questions:

1. Was that the rate paid all over the UK? (I think a national rate only came into place after 1931).

2.How many weeks were unemployed people paid that much? (I don't think it was for ever - I think there was a limit).

3. How many weeks did they have to pay into their unemployment insurance for when they were working to be able to claim this unemployment benfit? (I think there was a set amount of weeks they had to pay in, before claiming the benefit when they were out of work)

This:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Report

Suggests benefits were paid consistently across the UK, since the cabinet were discussing cutting them August 1931.

Although the first meeting of this committee was due to meet on 25 August, MacDonald's holiday was interrupted on 11 August by a message from bankers that there was a run on the pound. The whole Cabinet discussed what to do from 20 August until on 24 August they could not reach a consensus on whether to cut unemployment benefits to ensure a balanced budget. Nine Cabinet members would resign if this was carried through, with the rest (11) not dissenting. The acting leader of the Liberals, Herbert Samuel, suggested a National Coalition Government headed by MacDonald, with Conservative leader Stanley Baldwin agreeing. Therefore on 24 August a National Government headed by MacDonald came into being, a consequence of which was to split the Labour Party.

Just a little bit of history repeating itself.

Whereas this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression_in_the_United_Kingdom

In the 1920s and 1930s, Britain had a relatively advanced welfare system compared to many of the industrialised countries. In 1911, a compulsory national unemployment and health insurance scheme had been put in place by the Liberal government of Herbert Henry Asquith (see Liberal reforms). This scheme had been funded through contributions from the government, the employers and the workers. At first, the scheme only applied to certain trades but, in 1920, it was expanded to include most manual workers.[4]

However, the scheme only paid out according to the level of contributions made rather than according to need, and was only payable for 15 weeks. Anyone unemployed for longer than that had to rely on poor law relief paid by their local authority. In effect, millions of workers who had been too poorly paid to make contributions, or who had been unemployed long term, were left destitute by the scheme. With the mass unemployment of the 1930s, contributions to the insurance scheme dried up, resulting in a funding crisis.

In August 1931, the 1911 scheme was replaced by a fully government-funded unemployment benefit system.[8] This system, for the first time, paid out according to need rather than the level of contributions. This unemployment benefit was subject to a strict means test, and anyone applying for unemployment pay had to have an inspection by a government official to make sure that they had no hidden earnings or savings, undisclosed source(s) of income or other means of support. For many poor people, this was a humiliating experience and was much resented.

Tells us the scheme was contributions based (which some of today's benefits are), and time-limited; after your 15 weeks of government dole, you switched to what sounds like the 1930s version of income support and was implemented differently by each local authority.

Kind of interesting that the UK has had a benefits system since before WWI, and it's been national and paid according to need since 1931. I didn't know there was a health insurance component from as far back as 1911 as well. Explodes a few myths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unemployment benefit in 1931 was reduced from 18 shilling to 15s and 3d. 15s and 3d in today's money relative to gdp ppp is £191.

My 'dole' is £53.45. It's £130 or so when you factor in housing benefit and council tax benefit. Even more when you consider free healthcare (prescriptions, dentist, opticians), further more still when you take into account travel discounts and assign a value to leisure time.

On a like for like (GDP PPP) basis though, it's less than what it was back then.

The even had a form of housing benefit paid in addition to standard 'dole' back then too.

Last month my housing benefit increased by 7%! Next year it will increase by 7%.

I'm not too fussed about working for a wage, I just want an allotment to rent, then I'll dig for victory!

How does that work then? Would your rent have to increase to get the benefit of it?

Ignore, I've read your other excellent post properly now! :rolleyes:

Edited by John Steed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The key difference between the 1930s and now was how active the then UK government was in investing in infrastructure, including constructing the National Grid and a major house building program. My late grandfather who was an unemployed Welsh miner in 1930 ended up working on both projects. In fact Tory governments of that era went into a remarkable command and control mode to direct spending in areas that boosted production. The much maligned Neville Chamberlain was instrumental in driving through much of the work as Chancellor. Indeed, this is where much of the money saved from the benefit cut of that era went. Moreover, British industry was protected from competition during the recovery by a range of trade tariffs. Compare and contrast with the current bunch of deadbeats who just want to hand over the cash from cuts to their chums in the financial sector while praying for a private sector recovery which will probably never arrive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Housing benefit (HB) is means tested, by both income and capital (£6-16k - £1 benefit reduction per week per £250 capital above £6k). LHA (Local housing allowance) also. I claim housing benefit as I am a secure tenant of an RSL (registered social landlord). I have 0 'capital'. Each man/family unit has a 'basic benefit income' - in my case - £53.45 JSA (under 25 rate) + £5 income disreagrd. Because I'm on dole I get full HB and ful CTB (council tax benefit). I could earn £5 on top of dole before I start to lose benefits (first of all JSA is reduced at a rate of 100%) - that is to say if I earn a fiver a week its in my pocket, and i get £53.45 from DWP+HB+CTB, If I earn 53.45, I'd still get £5 of JSA+full HB + CTB

A single mother would get JSA (or incapaicty benefit - which is being phased out... or ESA - same as JSA but you don't have to 'sign on') + Child benefit + any DLA elements for her/her children + Child Tax Credits and an income disregard of £20. If she get that or less she get full hb/lha at the applicable rate.

If I find a job I must immediately pay for housing. Anything I earn past my threshold of £53.45+£5 I must pay 65% of income on paying off my housing benefit, and 20% on paying off my council tax benefit - cumulatively 85% of income is lost to reduced benefit. (I get to keep 15% of earnings past the threshold till they are cleared - until NI and tax kicks in.. when I lose 85%+ 32%)

You get paid HB/LHA & CTB from the day you claim. ALWAYS claim when your entitled!

Does that make any sense?

Another way to look at it...

I get £53.45 + HB + CTB.

If I earn £5; I get £5 + £53.45 + HB + CTB

If I earn £53.45; I get £53.45 + £5 + HB + CTB

If I earn £58.45; I get £58.45 + HB + CTB

Any £1 past £58.45 I lose 65p HB and 20p CTB till I no longer receive benefit.

_____

However, due to being under 25, once I lose HB/CTB I forefeit the right to free prescriptions etc. as I am ineligible for working tax credit due to age, if over 25 I'd get WTC and that would 'passport' me to free prescriptions etc.

1p a week of WTC passports you... 1p a week of HB passports you (but I think minimum claim is 50 pence a week)

This post sums up a big part of the problem- the sheer logistics of taking on partial work. The whole system is predicated on the idea of a binary world where you are either 1) Unemployed completely or 2) In full time self sustaining employment.

But the reality for many is that of temp jobs, or jobs that pay to little to live on or jobs where the hours fluctuate week to week. But taking on this type of work means a constant struggle with the system as it cannot cope with the complexity- so you risk losing more than you gain and in the end it's easier to not even bother.

This is why a national minimum wage makes so much sense- it's simple- it means if you do take on a few days a week work you don't have to risk losing your home because you have crossed some earning threshold that triggers a removal of one benefit or another. Just provide a basic living and let people keep whatever they can earn on top- that would save a fortune in administration and incentivise work for those involved.

Surely it's not beyond our wit to devise some combination of a tax/benefit system that at least does not actively punish those who try to better their situation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The key difference between the 1930s and now was how active the then UK government was in investing in infrastructure, including constructing the National Grid and a major house building program. My late grandfather who was an unemployed Welsh miner in 1930 ended up working on both projects. In fact Tory governments of that era went into a remarkable command and control mode to direct spending in areas that boosted production. The much maligned Neville Chamberlain was instrumental in driving through much of the work as Chancellor. Indeed, this is where much of the money saved from the benefit cut of that era went. Moreover, British industry was protected from competition during the recovery by a range of trade tariffs. Compare and contrast with the current bunch of deadbeats who just want to hand over the cash from cuts to their chums in the financial sector while praying for a private sector recovery which will probably never arrive.

And back then, any abusers of the system or those on fake sickies would be dragged out by the local union members in no time...

Further, if you look at the number of disable badge holders today in a supermarket car park, you will wonder if nature has been particularly harsh and unkind with the British population...

A system when abuses are not properly policed will not last.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FFS, neither I nor any other thinking person need the f'ing BBC to tell us that the future of welfare with the TINA elite in charge is poverty, ill health and neglect of the elderly so the children of said elite can go to Hogwarts and have play farms for their pony collections. Thus it will progress until they are stopped, which will not happen from voting, asking nicely or camping outside St Pauls... unless campers are armed, organised and better equipped in the way of replies than the hapless young woman demonstrator on C4 news last night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FFS, neither I nor any other thinking person need the f'ing BBC to tell us that the future of welfare with the TINA elite in charge is poverty, ill health and neglect of the elderly so the children of said elite can go to Hogwarts and have play farms for their pony collections. Thus it will progress until they are stopped, which will not happen from voting, asking nicely or camping outside St Pauls... unless campers are armed, organised and better equipped in the way of replies than the hapless young woman demonstrator on C4 news last night.

If people are camping in the street and huddled up like penguins, they don't have to pay rent...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Housing benefit (HB) is means tested, by both income and capital (£6-16k - £1 benefit reduction per week per £250 capital above £6k). LHA (Local housing allowance) also. I claim housing benefit as I am a secure tenant of an RSL (registered social landlord). I have 0 'capital'. Each man/family unit has a 'basic benefit income' - in my case - £53.45 JSA (under 25 rate) + £5 income disreagrd. Because I'm on dole I get full HB and ful CTB (council tax benefit). I could earn £5 on top of dole before I start to lose benefits (first of all JSA is reduced at a rate of 100%) - that is to say if I earn a fiver a week its in my pocket, and i get £53.45 from DWP+HB+CTB, If I earn 53.45, I'd still get £5 of JSA+full HB + CTB

A single mother would get JSA (or incapaicty benefit - which is being phased out... or ESA - same as JSA but you don't have to 'sign on') + Child benefit + any DLA elements for her/her children + Child Tax Credits and an income disregard of £20. If she get that or less she get full hb/lha at the applicable rate.

If I find a job I must immediately pay for housing. Anything I earn past my threshold of £53.45+£5 I must pay 65% of income on paying off my housing benefit, and 20% on paying off my council tax benefit - cumulatively 85% of income is lost to reduced benefit. (I get to keep 15% of earnings past the threshold till they are cleared - until NI and tax kicks in.. when I lose 85%+ 32%)

You get paid HB/LHA & CTB from the day you claim. ALWAYS claim when your entitled!

Does that make any sense?

Another way to look at it...

I get £53.45 + HB + CTB.

If I earn £5; I get £5 + £53.45 + HB + CTB

If I earn £53.45; I get £53.45 + £5 + HB + CTB

If I earn £58.45; I get £58.45 + HB + CTB

Any £1 past £58.45 I lose 65p HB and 20p CTB till I no longer receive benefit.

_____

However, due to being under 25, once I lose HB/CTB I forefeit the right to free prescriptions etc. as I am ineligible for working tax credit due to age, if over 25 I'd get WTC and that would 'passport' me to free prescriptions etc.

1p a week of WTC passports you... 1p a week of HB passports you (but I think minimum claim is 50 pence a week)

Serious question coming, please don't think I'm taking a shot at you because I'm not... You're obviously smart, you write clearly and in complete sentences about complex topics and you're computer literate. I just don't understand why you don't have a job. I know there's a lot of unemployment out there and economic times are tough, but, for example, there's many people in the organisation I work for (I'm thinking of its UK operations, not the bit in Canada where I am) who can barely string a coherent email together, yet they have managed to find reasonably well paid work. I'm betting that, if I saw your CV, I'd at least want to interview you. I don't think my company is unusual either - in fact, it has well above average people working for it from what I can tell. What's going on here?

edit: punctuation

Edited by tbatst2000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serious question coming, please don't think I'm taking a shot at you because I'm not... You're obviously smart, you write clearly and in complete sentences about complex topics and you're computer literate. I just don't understand why you don't have a job. I know there's a lot of unemployment out there and economic times are tough, but, for example, there's many people in the organisation I work for (I'm thinking of its UK operations, not the bit in Canada where I am) who can barely string a coherent email together, yet they have managed to find reasonably well paid work. I'm betting that, if I saw your CV, I'd at least want to interview you. I don't think my company is unusual either - in fact, it has well above average people working for it from what I can tell. What's going on here?

edit: punctuation

Sounds like you don't use 'HR' to recruit people. Employment is not about all those fine qualities, it's about being a 'safe' hire based on possession of the correct paper qualifications and a model CV.

The point being that if you are employed to recruit the 'right' person, who then turns out bad, you have a defensible position in that on paper they looked good-so who could have known?

If- on the other hand- you choose the guy who is weak on paper but who you feel is the best candidate and that goes wrong, well- you are stuffed, because your boss can legitimately say 'why did you hire this guy- he clearly did not have the right background."

So from the point of view of HR, far better to hire a drone with the right CV than some one like Unemployed Again Youth who will probably do a better job but leaves your backside hanging if it goes badly- why take that risk?

HR are designed as a filter- but what they filter out may include on occasion those whose innate value has not been captured by the drone machine called education.

On paper I am an illterate moron- I have no qualifications- but that does not prevent me from engaging in debate on here and being taken seriously (most of the time :D )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like you don't use 'HR' to recruit people. Employment is not about all those fine qualities, it's about being a 'safe' hire based on possession of the correct paper qualifications and a model CV.

The point being that if you are employed to recruit the 'right' person, who then turns out bad, you have a defensible position in that on paper they looked good-so who could have known?

If- on the other hand- you choose the guy who is weak on paper but who you feel is the best candidate and that goes wrong, well- you are stuffed, because your boss can legitimately say 'why did you hire this guy- he clearly did not have the right background."

So from the point of view of HR, far better to hire a drone with the right CV than some one like Unemployed Again Youth who will probably do a better job but leaves your backside hanging if it goes badly- why take that risk?

HR are designed as a filter- but what they filter out may include on occasion those whose innate value has not been captured by the drone machine called education.

On paper I am an illterate moron- I have no qualifications- but that does not prevent me from engaging in debate on here and being taken seriously (most of the time :D )

Goes back years - remember the old axiom "no-one ever got fired for buying IBM"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like you don't use 'HR' to recruit people. Employment is not about all those fine qualities, it's about being a 'safe' hire based on possession of the correct paper qualifications and a model CV.

The point being that if you are employed to recruit the 'right' person, who then turns out bad, you have a defensible position in that on paper they looked good-so who could have known?

If- on the other hand- you choose the guy who is weak on paper but who you feel is the best candidate and that goes wrong, well- you are stuffed, because your boss can legitimately say 'why did you hire this guy- he clearly did not have the right background."

It does seem like this is the situation. I'm similar to you in that I left grammar school with no qualifications at all, not even a single "O" level. I drifted from job to job until after I got married when I realised that I needed to take positive action to achieve a better standard of living. I went to college and got some qualifications. I hung on to the notion you outlined that it wasn't paper qualifications that mattered but the individual.

I progressed in my career and the time arrived when I had to recruit someone for the first time. So with 40 or 50 applications in front of me I faced the recruiters dilemma. It wouldn't be a good use of time to interview all the applicants so how could I filter their applications. Unfortunately it came down to how good I perceived then to be on paper.

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.

  • 276 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.