angos Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Unfortunately some parents would rather see their kids out on the street at 16 rather than support them if they're going to cost them more money - like if they want to go to college. They way round that is to prosecute parents that put their kids out on the street, or put the parents out on the street and let the kids live in their house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 They way round that is to prosecute parents that put their kids out on the street, or put the parents out on the street and let the kids live in their house. wow another silly idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 That was my responsibility until they had the ability to provide it themselves. You might have considered it so, but there was no legal obligation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angos Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 wow another silly idea Are you one of the people that would kick your kids out once all the benefits stop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Some kids start work at 16, many at 18. On the assumption that they gain full-time employment at these ages and contribute NI and such, by age e.g. 22 one will have paid 6 years into the system, the other 4 years. Now, for the sake of the argument, let's say they find themselves unemployed. Why should they be denied JSA? Genuine question. Why should the under 25s be singled out this way? Why should someone who started work at 16 and was made redundant at 24, after paying 8 years NI and tax, not be eligible for help? Would those apparently in favour of this measure (whether actually proposed by Cameron or not) please answer, or is the elephant in the room still not large enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 You get holiday pay working for agencies, or at least I did when I worked for one a few years ago. I think it was one holiday day for every 13 days worked. someone who works for our company has been there going on 3 years hasnt the slightest chance of being taken on (the books) dosent get holiday pay and if it rains/snows gets sent home without pay. imagine him going for a mortgage/private rent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angos Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 You might have considered it so, but there was no legal obligation. No I had a moral obligation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Would those apparently in favour of this measure (whether actually proposed by Cameron or not) please answer, or is the elephant in the room still not large enough? I suppose there's an easy solution.. make benefits somehow related to contributions..? ---------- Post added 02-10-2013 at 15:30 ---------- someone who works for our company has been there going on 3 years hasnt the slightest chance of being taken on (the books) dosent get holiday pay and if it rains/snows gets sent home without pay. imagine him going for a mortgage/private rent When my son worked for an agency his rate of pay was greater than that of the permanent workers, this was done to make up for the fact that his holidays weren't paid.. he had to take all his days off though..in effect he was paid the same as the permies..it was in I.T if that makes a difference.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 I suppose there's an easy solution.. make benefits somehow related to contributions..? ---------- Post added 02-10-2013 at 15:30 ---------- When my son worked for an agency his rate of pay was greater than that of the permanent workers, this was done to make up for the fact that his holidays weren't paid.. he had to take all his days off though..in effect he was paid the same as the permies..it was in I.T if that makes a difference.. hes on less than the book lads hope that helps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angos Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 I suppose there's an easy solution.. make benefits somehow related to contributions..? They already are, we have Contribution-based JSA. You can only get contribution-based JSA for 182 days. Which we could keep and Income-based JSA You could get this if you’ve not paid enough National Insurance. Which could be scrapped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.