Having a go at the wrong person/people.

[viv1969]

There are numerous reasons why people who want to work find themselves unemployed.
Do you seriously think that everyone on JSA is just too lazy to get a job? Really?

No, but paying them in benefit only what is required to subsist will give them the incentive to return to employment far more quickly IMO.

There are jobs out there.
Many aren't clean, or pretty, and may not pay as much as a previous job, but if that's the case, get two.

Our cleaner at work, who is paid an hourly rate far in excess of the minimum wage, has three jobs. This is because he chooses to live in south London, and is prepared to work more to pay the premiums necessary to live where and how he wishes.

Yes, people are unfortunate enough to sometimes find themselves out of work through no fault of their own, but the welfare system should ensure that until they find another position, they are paid sufficiently to ensure they are warm, dry and fed. Nothing more.

 

[ghoti]

Average length of a JSA claim in the UK is around 90 days. Most people only claim JSA for short periods. Claims lasting more than 6 months are statistically rare.
Doesn't really support the idea of a scrounging culture.

 

[SFTPhotography]

Average length of a JSA claim in the UK is around 90 days. Most people only claim JSA for short periods. Claims lasting more than 6 months are statistically rare.
Doesn't really support the idea of a scrounging culture.

C'mon, there is allowances for this, that and the other. People can duck employment and live it up on a life of petty crime and benefits

 

[viv1969]

Average length of a JSA claim in the UK is around 90 days. Most people only claim JSA for short periods. Claims lasting more than 6 months are statistically rare.
Doesn't really support the idea of a scrounging culture.

Perhaps cases of claims lasting more than six months are rare due to standard JSA only being payable for 26 weeks?

Edit....My point is simply that I believe benefits should be paid only in accordance with what is necessary to live.
Food, heat, light, accommodation, basic clothing etc etc....all if which can be administrated using voucher systems or payment made directly to the provider.

 

[Ian D J]

She lives only up the road from my house, about 100 yards from here.

Not really a constructive contribution to this thread by me, just thought I'd mention that.

 

[andya700]

As someone who has been unemployed for five months, I can tell you that it is no fun at all, and the simple fact is, that we may lose our house very shortly, which probably explains why I tend to be grumpy when I post on here.
We get a slight reduction in council tax, NO help with our mortgage, heat or light.
We also know two couples who are both working, who have no mortgage (inherited property), yet receive WTC's and help with council tax, this in addition to CB for the children they have.
I would suggest that unemployed people such as my wife and I, receive far FEWER benefits than many people who are working, and who have children as a lifestyle choice.
We also know one young lady (daughter of a mate), who has never worked in her life, yet was given a fully furnished flat at the age of 17, and as fasr as I know still lives there five years later.
The job situation in this country is pretty dire, with around 2 million unemployed (not counting those on zero hours or part time, or apprentices on less than £4 per hour), with around 400 thousand job vacancies.
We are trying to start our own business, yet the Jobcentre are trying to force me to take on voluntary - UNPAID - work to GET EXPERIENCE. They have also attempted to send me on courses to learn basic English and Maths skills, as well as basic computer skills!
I had worked for thirty five years, until it all started to go wrong, and there is no doubt in my mind that age plays a very big part in getting a job.
As for the woman on QT, I have zero sympathy for her. Why does she get £400 a week? Why should the state/taxpayer pick up the tab because of her decision to have children - we didn't have kids because we couldn't afford to. Where is the father(s), and why aren't they paying their share?
Rant over - and breathe!

 

[Cobra]

As someone who has been unemployed for five months, I can tell you that it is no fun at all, and the simple fact is, that we may lose our house very shortly, which probably explains why I tend to be grumpy when I post on here.

Oh Crap sorry to hear that Andy, I hope that you find a solution very quickly

 

[Steve Smith]

The reason that most of the unemployed are in that situation is because there are not enough jobs to go round. Only a small percentage don't want to work.

And it's pointless targeting benefit recipients when only 0.7% of benefits are claimed fraudulently. It would be much better to tackle corporate tax evasion.


Steve.

 

[dejongj]

As someone who has been unemployed for five months, I can tell you that it is no fun at all, and the simple fact is, that we may lose our house very shortly, which probably explains why I tend to be grumpy when I post on here.
We get a slight reduction in council tax, NO help with our mortgage, heat or light.
We also know two couples who are both working, who have no mortgage (inherited property), yet receive WTC's and help with council tax, this in addition to CB for the children they have.
I would suggest that unemployed people such as my wife and I, receive far FEWER benefits than many people who are working, and who have children as a lifestyle choice.
We also know one young lady (daughter of a mate), who has never worked in her life, yet was given a fully furnished flat at the age of 17, and as fasr as I know still lives there five years later.
The job situation in this country is pretty dire, with around 2 million unemployed (not counting those on zero hours or part time, or apprentices on less than £4 per hour), with around 400 thousand job vacancies.
We are trying to start our own business, yet the Jobcentre are trying to force me to take on voluntary - UNPAID - work to GET EXPERIENCE. They have also attempted to send me on courses to learn basic English and Maths skills, as well as basic computer skills!
I had worked for thirty five years, until it all started to go wrong, and there is no doubt in my mind that age plays a very big part in getting a job.
As for the woman on QT, I have zero sympathy for her. Why does she get £400 a week? Why should the state/taxpayer pick up the tab because of her decision to have children - we didn't have kids because we couldn't afford to. Where is the father(s), and why aren't they paying their share?
Rant over - and breathe!

Thank you for sharing. This to me exactly highlights what is so wrong with the system, and reading this makes me angry. The safetynet needs to be there and support exactly these kind of situations, and in my opinion, something I've shared many a time on here yet still are being accused as some kind of right wing lunatic, the benefits need to be increased significantly for anyone finding themselves in such temporary situations; including the vulnerable and dependant who stand no chance in looking after themselves.

In my opinion the safety net is not representative, not useful and must be increased. I would like to see that anyone unfortunate enough to find themselves in such a situation receives at least;

- 70% of average income over the previous four year
- Will remain in receipt for upto 18 months
- Is encouraged and supported with a relocation advance for jobs at an equal level in a different location.
- Something new; mainly due to the stupid house market in the UK - discretion for additional house benefit to ensure people do not loose their home during such a period. Previously I would have said 70% should be enough to cover that, but nowadays a 3x multiple for mortgage is not getting anyone anywhere....

Key points which benefit anyone is that benefits resemble your contribution into the system, and not only that, maintaining your home provides stability and significantly increases opportunity to either change location on your terms without further financial hardship, or locally as well. Further more, job centre places pushing experience people down to any job doesn't help. It still won't pay the bills, it pushes others out of the market without experience and is a race to the bottom. 18 months should be plenty of time to take control of the situation in a sustainable way.

@andy700 sorry to hear, but it really angers me that there is no actual safetynet for families like yours who had some tough luck. None of the governments focus on that group at all. I hope your and your families luck changes soon.

 

[dejongj]

The reason that most of the unemployed are in that situation is because there are not enough jobs to go round. Only a small percentage don't want to work.

And it's pointless targeting benefit recipients when only 0.7% of benefits are claimed fraudulently. It would be much better to tackle corporate tax evasion.


Steve.

How large do you estimate corporation tax evasion to be? Or are you talking about ending the double taxation treaties and tax avoidance measures?

 

[andya700]

Further more, job centre places pushing experience people down to any job doesn't help. It still won't pay the bills, it pushes others out of the market without experience and is a race to the bottom. 18 months should be plenty of time to take control of the situation in a sustainable way.

@andy700 sorry to hear, but it really angers me that there is no actual safetynet for families like yours who had some tough luck. None of the governments focus on that group at all. I hope your and your families luck changes soon.

Thanks for your post, I actually feel a bit better for having a rant
I think that your point which I have highlighted, is the most frustrating aspect of this whole thing. If anyone told me ten years ago that I would be in this situation I would have laughed. However, after 2007/8 when everyone started cutting back, and like many people I was made redundant, it became obvious that things were very different. I went from a permanent job of eight years, to contracts, then temporary jobs and then it all started to dry up.
To have someone suggest that I undertake unpaid work in order to "get experience", is something which I find downright insulting.
It is a "race to the bottom" at the moment, and I think it will only get worse, particularly when you look at austerity cuts and the increasing population.

 

[BillN_33]

How large do you estimate corporation tax evasion to be? Or are you talking about ending the double taxation treaties and tax avoidance measures?

do you reckon she declares her cash earnings from her "salon" and pays income tax on those ........ or declares the correct gross earnings figures when her "benefits" are assessed?

 

[dejongj]

I wouldn't dare to accuse anyone of fraud where I have no basis to do so.

What I can comment on is that if you make reference to her using my comment than you are seriously missing the point. She is reported to be self employed through her salon. As such corporation tax has nothing to do with it as there is not separate legal entity involved.

 

[Cobra]

To have someone suggest that I undertake unpaid work in order to "get experience", is something which I find downright insulting.

I agree, I've heard of that a few times, recently "doing community / charity work, as it will look good on your CV".

In truth it looks good on the un-employment figures

 

[cambsno]

Thanks for your post, I actually feel a bit better for having a rant
I think that your point which I have highlighted, is the most frustrating aspect of this whole thing. If anyone told me ten years ago that I would be in this situation I would have laughed. However, after 2007/8 when everyone started cutting back, and like many people I was made redundant, it became obvious that things were very different. I went from a permanent job of eight years, to contracts, then temporary jobs and then it all started to dry up.
To have someone suggest that I undertake unpaid work in order to "get experience", is something which I find downright insulting.
It is a "race to the bottom" at the moment, and I think it will only get worse, particularly when you look at austerity cuts and the increasing population.

Agree with a previous post. You should get a large chunk of previous salaries for a time as it should be a safety net.

Where are you? I ask as I have found the job market round me (cambs) to be very good. Plenty of work available although appreciate Cambridge is an affluent area. I have been trying to recruit a sales person for north east for a month and have been disappointed with the candidates so far yet still got the vacancy.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

EDIT

Sorry, deleted, don't want to get drawn into this argument.

 

[Gary Coyle]

Great idea

No its not, an ex pal of mine who became a drug and booze user was in the mental health system (only to get benefits) was given food and clothing vouchers, he used t sell them for guess what

 

[Phil V]

£400 per week plus wages and maintenance isn't poor and needy though. The father(s) of the kids should be picking up the tab not the tax payer, regardless of whether you want to pay more tax.
As for military excursions and subsidising big business, that just means people remain employed and pay tax and national insurance back into the system.

Well I was bored...
So I went on the tax credit calculator, as a single mum with 4 kids, no matter how low I made the income, the maximum tax credit I could claim was £300 and pennies.

So firstly there's some fibs in the reporting, but secondly if the lady really is getting hundreds a week, she needs to be working over 16 hours per week for a nett income of peanuts (less than NMW by a long way).

If I was a gambling man, and as I'm quite cynical, I'd suggest the lady in question is severely under reporting her earnings and thought she was on to a good thing, voting Tory because she was one of those tax fiddlers that the Tories love, not one of those benefit scroungers that they hate!

She's just realised its not a tax vs benefit issue, the Tories hate the poor and they feel they exist as an asset of the rich.

 

[dejongj]

Well I was bored...
So I went on the tax credit calculator, as a single mum with 4 kids, no matter how low I made the income, the maximum tax credit I could claim was £300 and pennies.

So firstly there's some fibs in the reporting, but secondly if the lady really is getting hundreds a week, she needs to be working over 16 hours per week for a nett income of peanuts (less than NMW by a long way).

If I was a gambling man, and as I'm quite cynical, I'd suggest the lady in question is severely under reporting her earnings and thought she was on to a good thing, voting Tory because she was one of those tax fiddlers that the Tories love, not one of those benefit scroungers that they hate!

She's just realised its not a tax vs benefit issue, the Tories hate the poor and they feel they exist as an asset of the rich.

So much interesting and useful additions, and then totally discredited by such total rubbish comments regarding the Tories. I bet they also kill puppies.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

Well I was bored...
So I went on the tax credit calculator, as a single mum with 4 kids, no matter how low I made the income, the maximum tax credit I could claim was £300 and pennies.

So firstly there's some fibs in the reporting, but secondly if the lady really is getting hundreds a week, she needs to be working over 16 hours per week for a nett income of peanuts (less than NMW by a long way).

If I was a gambling man, and as I'm quite cynical, I'd suggest the lady in question is severely under reporting her earnings and thought she was on to a good thing, voting Tory because she was one of those tax fiddlers that the Tories love, not one of those benefit scroungers that they hate!

She's just realised its not a tax vs benefit issue, the Tories hate the poor and they feel they exist as an asset of the rich.

The reason you can't get to £400 is because the £400 includes maintenance payments. More lies and misreporting by the Mail swallowed by the wilfully ignorant.

 

[dejongj]

The reason you can't get to £400 is because the £400 includes maintenance payments. More lies and misreporting by the Mail swallowed by the wilfully ignorant.

First philV now you, can't you make a point without being super nasty and swiping at someone else?

 

[Phil V]

So much interesting and useful additions, and then totally discredited by such total rubbish comments regarding the Tories. I bet they also kill puppies.

I do seriously apologise for how that sounds, but sociologically that's the point of the thread. Person taken in by political party she felt was on her side, she didn't care when they said they'd be taking money from people she didn't care about. She discovers she is being targeted and feels let down.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

First philV now you, can't you make a point without being super nasty and swiping at someone else?

If you think pointing out the nonsense swallowed by people who wish to believe these lies because it supports their world view is me being nasty, you are wrong. I am just stating a fact, and I am sorry if the facts upset you.

 

[dejongj]

I do seriously apologise for how that sounds, but sociologically that's the point of the thread. Person taken in by political party she felt was on her side, she didn't care when they said they'd be taking money from people she didn't care about. She discovers she is being targeted and feels let down.

Fair enough, in this specific context I do agree it makes sense but don't agree with the generalisation.

I think the cuts are the right thing to do, however the way they get implemented cause unnecessary hardship in my opinion.

But worse, David Cameron is on record that he would not do this. Very clearly and unambiguously. That I find troubling.

 

[Phil V]

Fair enough, in this specific context I do agree it makes sense but don't agree with the generalisation.

I think the cuts are the right thing to do, however the way they get implemented cause unnecessary hardship in my opinion.

But worse, David Cameron is on record that he would not do this. Very clearly and unambiguously. That I find troubling.

I've mentioned it previously, it troubles me (and it's not party political) this government and the previous were elected on a manifesto that they failed to act on, and have followed policies which weren't in the manifesto.

More than the politicians though, the people who voted knowing that (not that it was pointed out too well during the election campaign) should Labour have made a better job of that? Does any of it even matter, people are so disengaged and expect it all to be crap.

 

[viv1969]

EDIT

Sorry, deleted, don't want to get drawn into this argument.

The reason you can't get to £400 is because the £400 includes maintenance payments. More lies and misreporting by the Mail swallowed by the wilfully ignorant.

If you think pointing out the nonsense swallowed by people who wish to believe these lies because it supports their world view is me being nasty, you are wrong. I am just stating a fact, and I am sorry if the facts upset you.

Decided against it then

 

[Deleted member 49549]

Decided against it then

Yep, just got annoyed with people continually posting inaccuracies. I am the man in this cartoon tonight (sadly....)!

 

[dejongj]

Yep, just got annoyed with people continually posting inaccuracies. I am the man in this cartoon tonight (sadly....)!

Nothing wrong with correcting an inaccuracy, you can do that without being nasty and call people who you think are wrong wilfully ignorant.

Hey some of us are even man enough to admit it when we are wrong.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

Nothing wrong with correcting an inaccuracy, you can do that without being nasty and call people who you think are wrong wilfully ignorant.

Hey some of us are even man enough to admit it when we are wrong.

People who do not bother to verify claims from a dubious source are being wilfully ignorant, nothing nasty in saying that at all. If some people do think that is nasty, they are reading far too much into that statement.

 

[dejongj]

People who do not bother to verify claims from a dubious source are being wilfully ignorant, nothing nasty in saying that at all. If some people do think that is nasty, they are reading far too much into that statement.

I disagree that a national news paper is a dubious source. Now if someone puts forwards a good and plausible alternative and then people choose to ignore that then you may perhaps have a point. So far I've only heard confrontation and insult from you, not an argument or point being put forward at all n

 

[andya700]

Agree with a previous post. You should get a large chunk of previous salaries for a time as it should be a safety net.

Where are you? I ask as I have found the job market round me (cambs) to be very good. Plenty of work available although appreciate Cambridge is an affluent area. I have been trying to recruit a sales person for north east for a month and have been disappointed with the candidates so far yet still got the vacancy.

Down in the "garden of England". To be honest, Cambs. would be good for my OH, but we have lived here for 25 years, and it takes a lot to sell up and relocate - but it may come to that.

 

[andya700]

People who do not bother to verify claims from a dubious source are being wilfully ignorant, nothing nasty in saying that at all. If some people do think that is nasty, they are reading far too much into that statement.

As someone on benefits, I assumed that the £400 was total benefits (not just TC's) paid to her, which would be quite possible, particularly if she is living in an area where there are high rental charges.
I always find it strange that folks can claim rent to be paid to landlords, but those of us that have a mortgage are treated like scum.

 

[Phil V]

As someone on benefits, I assumed that the £400 was total benefits (not just TC's) paid to her, which would be quite possible, particularly if she is living in an area where there are high rental charges.
I always find it strange that folks can claim rent to be paid to landlords, but those of us that have a mortgage are treated like scum.

Sorry Andy: It's bad and gets worse.

The only 'unfair' things I know about Universal Credit are around the difference between renters and mortgage payers. The UC ethos of 'making work pay' falls over only when it comes to mortgage interest payments.

 

[ecoleman]

Perhaps cases of claims lasting more than six months are rare due to standard JSA only being payable for 26 weeks?

Edit....My point is simply that I believe benefits should be paid only in accordance with what is necessary to live.
Food, heat, light, accommodation, basic clothing etc etc....all if which can be administrated using voucher systems or payment made directly to the provider.

Have you ever had to claim JSA? I can assure you it doesn't even cover what is necessary to live.

6 years ago I was made redundant and gad no choice but to claim JSA. If I remember is was around £140/ week which I got to support my family of three. Have you ever had to buy food, heating, water, electricity, pay other existing bills ( that don't just vanish when you loose your job) with £140 a week.

Thanks god I was in rented accommodation so the council also paid the rent and council tax. If it was my own property, I would have been expected to pat the mortgage out of my £140 a week as well.

I agree that some people get far to many other benefits that encourage them to stay at home and play their £500 play stations on their 50" tellys, but please don't make out that JSA pays more than necessary unless you've tried it yourself.

I can also tell you that I searched and applied for hundreds and hundreds of jobs in the time I was on JSA, but jobs were scares, with hundreds applying for the same jobs. As for doing the lowly, dirty, underpaid jobs I was told I was over qualified a number of times.

Luckily, I was qualified enough to setup my own business and made it a success even throughout the recession and am now well into the 40% tax bracket, but I am ever grateful for JSA for helping me when I needed it.

I just hope that you are not unfortunate enough to have to experience it for yourself

 

[Mark twiglet]

I survey local authority houses and have done for 25 years and the trend has changed! It used to be that people were genuine council house tenants! I grew up on a council estate!

Boy has it changed!

I'm a 44 year old who's never been out of work but didn't qualify for social housing in an area I spent first 22 years of my life in.....,

But 2 months after being turned down for I visited to survey and the tenant who lived there had been moved 30 miles away from her family and wanted to move out ASAP ! Hated it!

A bloke the other day in a 4 bed house which he owned....., before getting into difficulties which I understand ..... But now has been on it so long .... The council own his 4 bed detached house! He lives there rent free on benifits with kids and grand kids all on the king cole....... Mobility 14 plate people carrier on the drive and a caravan ! Well look at me...



IM TOO FAT TO WORK!!!!!!


Boils my p***!!!

 

[dejongj]

I survey local authority houses and have done for 25 years and the trend has changed! It used to be that people were genuine council house tenants! I grew up on a council estate!

Boy has it changed!

In what way?

 

[viv1969]

Have you ever had to claim JSA? I can assure you it doesn't even cover what is necessary to live.

6 years ago I was made redundant and gad no choice but to claim JSA. If I remember is was around £140/ week which I got to support my family of three. Have you ever had to buy food, heating, water, electricity, pay other existing bills ( that don't just vanish when you loose your job) with £140 a week.

Thanks god I was in rented accommodation so the council also paid the rent and council tax. If it was my own property, I would have been expected to pat the mortgage out of my £140 a week as well.

I agree that some people get far to many other benefits that encourage them to stay at home and play their £500 play stations on their 50" tellys, but please don't make out that JSA pays more than necessary unless you've tried it yourself.

I can also tell you that I searched and applied for hundreds and hundreds of jobs in the time I was on JSA, but jobs were scares, with hundreds applying for the same jobs. As for doing the lowly, dirty, underpaid jobs I was told I was over qualified a number of times.

Luckily, I was qualified enough to setup my own business and made it a success even throughout the recession and am now well into the 40% tax bracket, but I am ever grateful for JSA for helping me when I needed it.

I just hope that you are not unfortunate enough to have to experience it for yourself

I'm not sure why you seem so angry at me tbh.

Nowhere here have I suggested that JSA is too much or too easily given, in fact your post kind of makes my point for me.

The kind of system I favour would assist you, not hinder you.
Your household expenditure would be calculated from existing bills, and benefit would be paid accordingly, ensuring that your utilitues are covered, your bellies full and your accommodation is not at risk etc.

And yes, I have been unemployed, though it was back when the benefit wasn't given the pretty name of JSA.
It wasn't for long though, because when it became obvious that I too was vastly over qualified for many of the jobs, I tailored my CV to suit each application, and gave my interview answers accordingly.

The job I secured didn't pay enough so I got a second one in the evenings.
It was hard, and knackering, but it wasn't for the long term because I discovered that it's a fact that it's easier to get another job when you already have one.

I'm glad you're successful now, and sorry you didn't get sufficient support at the time, but having a go at me when it seems you haven't comprehended what I've said is a bit of a teddy throwing exercise.

 

[nilagin]

The reason you can't get to £400 is because the £400 includes maintenance payments. More lies and misreporting by the Mail swallowed by the wilfully ignorant.

Regardless of how the £400 is made up (How do you know for a fact it has be misreported) The money should be coming from the kids father(s) what ever the circumstances. It's not for the tax payer and benefits system to pick up the tab.

 

[nilagin]

People who do not bother to verify claims from a dubious source are being wilfully ignorant, nothing nasty in saying that at all. If some people do think that is nasty, they are reading far too much into that statement.

Feel free to verify your claims for us ignorant folk then.

 

[nilagin]

At the risk of being ignorant and supplying what could be more misreported information, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...n-Time-unlikely-affected-tax-credit-cuts.html it seems she may not be affected by the Benefit cuts and even if she will be she has until April 2017 to try to better things for herself anyway.