overtime just to cover living costs

platinum87 said:
No the government need to simply stop paying benefits, if people want to work 16 hours, let them work 16 hours, if they want to work zero hours, let them live on the streets and beg.
Click to expand...
It sounds harsh, but there needs to be a better way. I don't think you should get so many hand outs if not working. I remember when j was name redundant a decade ago as I was responsible and had a mortgage I couldn't get that paid for, but rent would have been covered. I think there should be a time limit on jobseekers, say if you've worked for 10 years you can claim for 10. Not massively off topic, but there's plenty of jobs out their that don't require doctorates, but (generalising on the area I know) a lot of people are just lazy and as someone said stuff like a care home would be all paid for by the state, so state rewarded for not trying.
 
moon man said:
been on sick for the last 6 months ,no benefits (too much savings ) take home £125 a week ,great way to streamline spending ,walking and surfing is cheap
Click to expand...

This is my favourite thing about benefits. "thank you for paying your taxes for the last 30 years but we've noticed that you have been sensible with your money so....give us a call when you have eaten through your saving and we will give you a pittance every month". Boggles the mind. So many things incentivise poor financial planning in this country.

Its one of the reasons its so hard to have a debate on benefits and who should pay for what. You see your neighbours or people you know who earn far less money than you but are buying new cars and going on expensive holidays yearly and you know that when it comes down to it, the state will just look after them when they retire with very little while you burn through your savings.

Living on benefits is not something I would even wish to do but we have made it far too appealing for people to spend above their means in this country.
 
I do overtime whenever I get given the chance to. Even if it means I work long hours or 7 days a week. Has to be done in this economy.
 
theone8181 said:
It sounds harsh, but there needs to be a better way. I don't think you should get so many hand outs if not working. I remember when j was name redundant a decade ago as I was responsible and had a mortgage I couldn't get that paid for, but rent would have been covered. I think there should be a time limit on jobseekers, say if you've worked for 10 years you can claim for 10. Not massively off topic, but there's plenty of jobs out their that don't require doctorates, but (generalising on the area I know) a lot of people are just lazy and as someone said stuff like a care home would be all paid for by the state, so state rewarded for not trying.
Click to expand...

Jobseekers is time limited and they have the power to sanction the measly £74.70 a week you get if they feel you aren't doing enough to find work. Thankfully I haven't had to use it but I have friends who have and its not just a matter of sign on, get your cash.

The 16 hour thing is because you can end up losing money for going over it, the system should reward those who find more work but it does the opposite. That doesn't mean we should go back to Victorian workhouses or chucking people out on the streets like some on here want.
 
fez said:
This is my favourite thing about benefits. "thank you for paying your taxes for the last 30 years but we've noticed that you have been sensible with your money so....give us a call when you have eaten through your saving and we will give you a pittance every month". Boggles the mind. So many things incentivise poor financial planning in this country.

Its one of the reasons its so hard to have a debate on benefits and who should pay for what. You see your neighbours or people you know who earn far less money than you but are buying new cars and going on expensive holidays yearly and you know that when it comes down to it, the state will just look after them when they retire with very little while you burn through your savings.

Living on benefits is not something I would even wish to do but we have made it far too appealing for people to spend above their means in this country.
Click to expand...

Yep its pretty rubbish, not going to start hiding money ect i would rather not jump through hoops for the benefit system, had my occupational health appointment so i should be back working with a phased return soon
 
Last edited:
Ive had Jobseekers for maybe 3 weeks in nearly 40 years of work and always treated like a criminal
In an ideal world you would get a decent percentage of your wage depending on how much you have paid in tapering down over time
 
moon man said:
Ive had Jobseekers for maybe 3 weeks in nearly 40 years of work and always treated like a criminal
In an ideal world you would get a decent percentage of your wage depending on how much you have paid in tapering down over time
Click to expand...
Yeah doesn't matter how much you've paid in over the decades, if you ever need a bit of help you get treated like scum.
Some people here even seem to agree with that.
 
fez said:
Its one of the reasons its so hard to have a debate on benefits and who should pay for what. You see your neighbours or people you know who earn far less money than you but are buying new cars and going on expensive holidays yearly and you know that when it comes down to it, the state will just look after them when they retire with very little while you burn through your savings.
Click to expand...

This is becoming less and less common now because in the end people who continuously make poor financial choices, its catching up with them way before they hit their retiring age.

Uther said:
Yeah doesn't matter how much you've paid in over the decades, if you ever need a bit of help you get treated like scum.
Some people here even seem to agree with that.
Click to expand...

Yep and they give you the bare, bare, bare minimum to survive.

The days of living off benefits and having the life style of an high income earner went out the window back in the 90's.
 
Uther said:
Yeah doesn't matter how much you've paid in over the decades, if you ever need a bit of help you get treated like scum.
Some people here even seem to agree with that.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of people who for the first time needed support due to the lockdowns got quite a shock at how badly you can be treated. That was with the £20 a week increase as well.
 
Uther said:
Yeah doesn't matter how much you've paid in over the decades, if you ever need a bit of help you get treated like scum.
Some people here even seem to agree with that.
Click to expand...

The Germans get this right.

You pay into a compulsory unemployment insurance scheme. If you end up unemployed, you get paid 60% of your salary for 12 months, tapered for another two I believe. In that time you can access loads of free training courses etc.

It's fair and treats people like human beings, as well actually helps get people into work and skilled up.

I know lots of people that lost their job, used the unemployment insurance payout year to retrain and find new work.
 
mid_gen said:
The Germans get this right.

You pay into a compulsory unemployment insurance scheme. If you end up unemployed, you get paid 60% of your salary for 12 months, tapered for another two I believe. In that time you can access loads of free training courses etc.

It's fair and treats people like human beings, as well actually helps get people into work and skilled up.

I know lots of people that lost their job, used the unemployment insurance payout year to retrain and find new work.
Click to expand...

That's a really well balanced policy - I wonder why it can't work here?

A while back before we had kids my wife was made redundant, and she signed on, and it was hell (for her in particular) and wasn't easy for her to get anything because I was still working, and we had a flat, ergo, not poor. Fair enough on the face of it, but the fact she paid into the system for years you'd have thought she'd have been able to get a bit of support. This was 10 years ago or so, but still. Something here isn't working.
 
I claimed JSA and housing benefit for a bit, just after 2008.

It was pretty easy then, I'd intentionally dress like a tramp, don't fill any of those forms in, and give very short answers when they ask what you'd been doing to find a job.

They'll leave you alone.

I agree with the above comments most of them look down on you, even though previously I was earning higher salary then whatever they are on.

To be fair though, I wouldn't want to do that job either. Just get agro all day.
 
Freefaller said:
That's a really well balanced policy - I wonder why it can't work here?
Click to expand...

Because the majority of our electorate have been conditioned into accepting the idea that anyone who ever requires help in life is a scrounging socialist commie scumbag, just out to rip off the honest hard working man and deserves nothing but derision and hardship. Why should anyone pay more of their HARD EARNED money to help *spits* ... other people?
 
Kenai said:
Because the majority of our electorate have been conditioned into accepting the idea that anyone who ever requires help in life is a scrounging socialist commie scumbag, just out to rip off the honest hard working man and deserves nothing but derision and hardship. Why should anyone pay more of their HARD EARNED money to help *spits* ... other people?
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Conservative ideaology essentially revolves around the idea that if you make life for the bottom 20% of earners as miserable as possible, they'll spend their lives desperately grasping their way up the career ladder, and everything else in society will fall neatly into place off the back of it, and the people that are left at the bottom deserve everything they get.
 
The future is scary really for pensions (state)

Personally I can't see pensions being universal when I retire.
Unfortunately this leaves myself having to find the money. This is my main driver for paying off my mortgage.

I really want to be mortgage free and be able to unlock the house value to fund retirement alongside a private pension (that will probably not be anywhere near enough.
 
Kenai said:
Because the majority of our electorate have been conditioned into accepting the idea that anyone who ever requires help in life is a scrounging socialist commie scumbag, just out to rip off the honest hard working man and deserves nothing but derision and hardship. Why should anyone pay more of their HARD EARNED money to help *spits* ... other people?
Click to expand...

mid_gen said:
Pretty much. Conservative ideaology essentially revolves around the idea that if you make life for the bottom 20% of earners as miserable as possible, they'll spend their lives desperately grasping their way up the career ladder, and everything else in society will fall neatly into place off the back of it, and the people that are left at the bottom deserve everything they get.
Click to expand...

Indeed - as someone who grew up in a more socialist/left leaning country (at the time) and environment it makes total sense to me that this is what we should be doing. My values are very much in line with this communal sense of belonging / support. I guess that makes me a commie scum!
 
I think there would be plenty of support for the German system if it was proposed over here. The issue with benefits is that they are abused by far too many people and that does sour peoples general opinion of them. There are entire areas of the country where a huge proportion of people exist on handouts and they will have generations that haven't worked. That needs to be addressed.

I assume there is a cap on the German system or are people who get sacked from their £300k/year banking job getting a nice £180k from the state for a year :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom