carosio Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Or is it moral for the employed to save in an undetectable way in order that they get the same benefits as the non savers when they lose their job. In my example it is perfectly legal and some would say shrewd; in yours it would be an offence if the savings exceeded the threshold and the benefit was claimed, if that's what you mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 It depends if you want contributory or means-tested JSA-only the latter is dependent on savings etc. Not everyone who has paid NI contributions all their lives qualifies for contribution based JSA. An acquaintance became unemployed last year, when the firm went bust. He was in his late 50s, so decided to start taking his private pension. Its not a lot, but it was enough to stop him getting even the 6 months of contribution based JSA. He'd worked for nearly 40 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carosio Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 so if he had said yes what would have been your answer ? I would have said that if he advocates that principle then he would justify (morally) those whom he criticises (the rich and bankers) to claim back in benefits pro-rata what they had paid in taxes such as income and VAT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 I would have said that if he advocates that principle then he would justify (morally) those whom he criticises (the rich and bankers) to claim back in benefits pro-rata what they had paid in taxes such as income and VAT. yes i thought so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrapeApe Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 I don't know the limits on savings but let's say you have 3 grand tucked away. Not sure what morals have to do with it. You should claim the maximum you are entitled to. that's what the welfare state is there for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parvo Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 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. they wouldn't get a council house they'd have to go into private rented..........which previous to you leaving the forum never to return you regarded as the scum of the earth if I remember rightly (do they pay housing benefits to maintain a tenancy if the tenant is serving a short sentence I wonder) ---------- Post added 31-03-2013 at 00:09 ---------- One could turn the OP around and ask: Is it moral for the employed to avoid saving so as to claim benefit if they do become unemployed? excellent point..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 I dont agree. Someone might be "sitting on" a house that could be worth £200K, with very few savings. Isnt the latter example richer than the person with £15k? More wealth on paper maybe but potentially poor in terms of cash flow. I would rather they had a modest pot of savings to cover essential repairs and other emergencies, than be looking to get even more off the state over and above their basic welfare claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 More wealth on paper maybe but potentially poor in terms of cash flow. I would rather they had a modest pot of savings to cover essential repairs and other emergencies, than be looking to get even more off the state over and above their basic welfare claim. I think that eveyone should get short term help when they are unemployed. Some richer people dont claim, but they have paid more into the system than the rest of us. So why not allow them to claim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 I think that eveyone should get short term help when they are unemployed. Some richer people dont claim, but they have paid more into the system than the rest of us. So why not allow them to claim? They can claim. Anybody can. If I had savings I don't think I would claim JSA though. I'd have to be utterly desperate. The thought of somebody at DWP controlling my life and snooping on me 24/7 would not be worth £70 a week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 shouldnt you be asking the gov that and the well off who dont seem to pay much ? The top 10% of earners in the country pay 50% of the tax revenue to the government. So rather than not paying much, they in fact pay the vast majority of tax. ---------- Post added 31-03-2013 at 10:31 ---------- It's not wrong at all. If you are not renting then you need money to cope with things like the heating system packing in and other potentially costly emergencies. If somebody has planned some modest savings to cover that kind of thing that is good. Why punish them? On the other hand if somebody has like £15k+ sitting there then they can claim but should be awarded a reduced amount. What about if they converted that asset into other forms? The car for example? Or fine wine? It seems counter intuitive to only consider assets held as cash for the purpose of reducing benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.