megalithic Posted March 30, 2013 Author Share Posted March 30, 2013 Been there, done that. Made redundant at age 55 after paying tax and NI for 30 odd years. Took me 18 months to get another job. Didn't see anything "morally wrong" with getting my princely sum of £65 per week JSA for 6 months. Any problems with that? None at all mate, you won't find a single post from me slating the UE, nor hard working people, it's not my "thing". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bassy Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 perhaps, 'morally', assets should be taken onto consideration, so home owners should be forced to sell up and pay back any benefits they've received in the interim so because they lose their job they should then lose their home too? and then the goverment would have to house them after this, so further stretching of the resources, and instead of unemployment benefit they then get housing and all the benefits that are associated with that, whats the point of that? making a bad situation even worse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 You can claim benefits if you have 10k stashed ? I find that wrong I find it just the opposite: Welcome to a section I call Vague Boy's Modern Fables Imagine 2 identical twin brothers. Let's call them John and David. Both leave school with the same qualifications and get a job in the same firm on identical pay grades. The main difference between John and David is that John is prudent and a saver, whereas David likes to splash his money around. John has £25000 in savings tucked away in an ISA. David likes nothing better than to drive his (as yet unpaid for) sports car down to the coast of a weekend, snorting cocaine off the heaving bosom of a high-class escort girl as he does so. David has £250000 of debt. Now, as it happens in this little tale, both are made redundant at exactly the same time. Because John saved his hard earned money he runs up against the £10k limit, despite having paid the same amount in National Insurance etc. as his brother. Because David has no savings and p*ssed all his money away, he gets all the benefits going. And that children is the sort of attitude to finances that has given us the longest recession since the war. I think I'll call this fable "The Ass and his Moral Hazard". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 so because they lose their job they should then lose their home too? and then the goverment would have to house them after this, so further stretching of the resources, and instead of unemployment benefit they then get housing and all the benefits that are associated with that, whats the point of that? making a bad situation even worse They could rent a property suitable for their needs. They could sell their property and get a room in a HMO, or a council house with the correct number of bedrooms. Why should their property wealth/savings be treated differently to another man's cash wealth/savings? In this country, a person with a mortgage can claim mortgage benefit (a.k.a. SMI, and the amount of bedrooms is not taken into account). That is grossly unfair, when tenants renting, are restricted from having spare rooms. In the interest of fairness, the government needs to bring in an SMI bedroom tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bassy Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 They could rent a property suitable for their needs. They could sell their property and get a room in a HMO, or a council house with the correct number of bedrooms. Why should their property wealth/savings be treated differently to another man's cash wealth/savings? In this country, a person with a mortgage can claim mortgage benefit (a.k.a. SMI, and the amount of bedrooms is not taken into account). That is grossly unfair, when tenants renting, are restricted from having spare rooms. In the interest of fairness, the government needs to bring in an SMI bedroom tax. so a man thats worked hard all his life, done the right thing, built a home around him should lose it when he hits hard times for a while and a man thats never worked and contributed a penny should sit back and hold his hand out for more, thats not right, if someone is entitled to savings while claiming benefit then why shouldnt someone thats previously worked hard for all he might have be able to keep it, it isnt the workin mans fault that the man whos never worked doesnt have the same lifestyle hes worked for, why shouldnt he get a benefit to help him keep a home hes worked and paid for, the other guy gets the benefits and a home he hasnt worked and paid for too, and i wasnt refering to the bedroom tax either, that wasnt what the thread was about some people have mortgages, some have rents, all different amounts so its difficult to say they should all get the same, no ones circumstances are the same, it should be on individual merit and situations, the goverment, banks etc are too eager to take things away from people rather than help them get back on their feet, for the most part people want to work and take care of themselves, its only a minority that think they are owed everything, the way people are treated when they need assistance never reflects this im not sayin either that they should be able to keep their savings etc and have luxury holidays new cars etc while they are taking benefits, im sure most with savings would use it to support and make up the difference while they are claiming, i just dont agree it should all be taken away, thats no incentive for anyone to try and better themselves if in the back of your mind you think whats the point , if it all goes wrong tomorrow its gonna be taken away anyway, its a difficult subject to agree on isnt it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Ok. Two low wage workers get laid off - one has saved for car, holiday or old folks home. One peed it up against a wall. Both get the same amount of money. Taking the savers money don't seem right to me. I agree, savers should never be penalised because it just discourages saving and saving are necessary for later life. Person A that chooses to save their money and spend it later on in life should get the same benefits as person B that chose to spend it as they earned it. ---------- Post added 30-03-2013 at 07:18 ---------- I find it just the opposite: Welcome to a section I call Vague Boy's Modern Fables Imagine 2 identical twin brothers. Let's call them John and David. Both leave school with the same qualifications and get a job in the same firm on identical pay grades. The main difference between John and David is that John is prudent and a saver, whereas David likes to splash his money around. John has £25000 in savings tucked away in an ISA. David likes nothing better than to drive his (as yet unpaid for) sports car down to the coast of a weekend, snorting cocaine off the heaving bosom of a high-class escort girl as he does so. David has £250000 of debt. Now, as it happens in this little tale, both are made redundant at exactly the same time. Because John saved his hard earned money he runs up against the £10k limit, despite having paid the same amount in National Insurance etc. as his brother. Because David has no savings and p*ssed all his money away, he gets all the benefits going. And that children is the sort of attitude to finances that has given us the longest recession since the war. I think I'll call this fable "The Ass and his Moral Hazard". You made the point so much better than I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 I find it just the opposite: Welcome to a section I call Vague Boy's Modern Fables Imagine 2 identical twin brothers. Let's call them John and David. Both leave school with the same qualifications and get a job in the same firm on identical pay grades. The main difference between John and David is that John is prudent and a saver, whereas David likes to splash his money around. John has £25000 in savings tucked away in an ISA. David likes nothing better than to drive his (as yet unpaid for) sports car down to the coast of a weekend, snorting cocaine off the heaving bosom of a high-class escort girl as he does so. David has £250000 of debt. Now, as it happens in this little tale, both are made redundant at exactly the same time. Because John saved his hard earned money he runs up against the £10k limit, despite having paid the same amount in National Insurance etc. as his brother. Because David has no savings and p*ssed all his money away, he gets all the benefits going. And that children is the sort of attitude to finances that has given us the longest recession since the war. I think I'll call this fable "The Ass and his Moral Hazard". david in his lifestyle choice has kept the local drug dealer in work paid for the services of a sex worker. both of these people in turn pay into the economy.john on the other hand never spent a penny to keep the economy going and now the gov are punishing him because of it. id say well done david you deserve the help you get Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey104 Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 They could rent a property suitable for their needs. They could sell their property and get a room in a HMO, or a council house with the correct number of bedrooms. Why should their property wealth/savings be treated differently to another man's cash wealth/savings? In this country, a person with a mortgage can claim mortgage benefit (a.k.a. SMI, and the amount of bedrooms is not taken into account). That is grossly unfair, when tenants renting, are restricted from having spare rooms. In the interest of fairness, the government needs to bring in an SMI bedroom tax. Excellent idea! Then I could buy the house and rent it out thus keeping another greedy landlord in pocket. I always knew you were on the side of the landlord Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Ok. Two low wage workers get laid off - one has saved for car, holiday or old folks home. One peed it up against a wall. Both get the same amount of money. Taking the savers money don't seem right to me. If it happens a week later when he's bought a car or an old folks home (why is he saving to by a retirement home?) then the asset is ignored. Only cash is considered, not houses, not cars, not the picasso hanging on the wall or the fine wine in the cellar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gym_rat Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 I thought that too. Let's hope so. lets hope not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.