gimp27 Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 But what sort of jobs are they? How much of a say are employers going to get or are they phantom, workfare sort of jobs? Little ed is already guarenteeing a job for everybody under 25 so he must have some very big plans on kick starting the economy. Maybe he's gone all ukip and he's sending all the foreigners home. Yoi never know ya luck. UKIP4ME. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 The people I feel sorry for who never seem to get a mention are people in their 50's and 60's who have lost their jobs but can't claim anything because their children have left home, or their partner is working, or they have savings. They've paid in for years, but have to spend their life savings to survive when they are unlikely to get another job to make up the shortfall in retirement. All they have to look forward to is old age and penury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supertramp Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 The people I feel sorry for who never seem to get a mention are people in their 50's and 60's who have lost their jobs but can't claim anything because their children have left home, or their partner is working, or they have savings. They've paid in for years, but have to spend their life savings to survive when they are unlikely to get another job to make up the shortfall in retirement. All they have to look forward to is old age and penury. As ever I love your over dramatisation. People who's partners are working are living in penury? Do you even know what penury means? There are very few, and I mean very few people who live in penury in the UK and even they would be helped if they would allow it by the relevant authorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 The people I feel sorry for who never seem to get a mention are people in their 50's and 60's who have lost their jobs but can't claim anything because their children have left home, or their partner is working, or they have savings. They've paid in for years, but have to spend their life savings to survive when they are unlikely to get another job to make up the shortfall in retirement. All they have to look forward to is old age and penury. That's why we saved, so we could enjoy working less as we get holder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 That's why we saved, so we could enjoy working less as we get holder. Have to get paid enough in the first place to save something for later Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Have to get paid enough in the first place to save something for later Enough for what, different people have different expectations of what enough is. And if they don't save they can always fall back on benefits, the one aspect of benefits I do disagree with, is, two people, lets call them A and B A, earns £40K a years but spends it all. B, earns £20K a years but manages to save some. They both loose their jobs, A gets benefits whilst B doesn't because they managed to save. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Enough for what, different people have different expectations of what enough is. And if they don't save they can always fall back on benefits, the one aspect of benefits I do disagree with, is, two people, lets call them A and B A, earns £40K a years but spends it all. B, earns £20K a years but manages to save some. They both loose their jobs, A gets benefits whilst B doesn't because they managed to save. Except they would both get benefits based on their NI contributions irrespective of savings, then if they still needed help after these ran out it would be based on means. If someone has +£16,000 in the bank, then they are better placed to cope, than someone with nothing. Makes perfect sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Except they would both get benefits based on their NI contributions irrespective of savings, then if they still needed help after these ran out it would be based on means. If someone has +£16,000 in the bank, then they are better placed to cope, than someone with nothing. Makes perfect sense to me. Not anymore, they would have both got JSA, but A would have qualified for other benefits despite the fact A had earned more money than B. Under UC I think savings over £16K would mean no benefits, which could discourage people from saving for that rainy day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 How is this slavery if they are paid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.