Redundancy and Job Seekers Allowance

[oobster]

10 Pence Short said:

hoathenfold said:

Thanks all for your responses.
My redundancy was compulsory and i also thought i was going to get contribution based allowance.
I also thought this was available to everyone who had 'contributed'.
Maybe this isnt the case, but i will definately get my debts paid off straight away and then reapply.

You have more than £16k in the bank and expect sympathy because the state won't give you a handout?

For f*cks sake, you seem no better than the scroungers who have no intention of working.

While I can understand your viewpoint, I HAD to claim JSA recently in order for my mortgage payment insurance to pay out.

I was made redundant (i.e. not voluntary) just over a month ago and I get the £60-odd quid a week JSA, contributions-based.

I didn't want to claim it, kind of a pride thing, but in order for my mortgage to be paid I had no choice.

Edited by oobster on Sunday 19th October 12:34

[Emeye]

I was made redundant a few months ago and was expecting nothing but my NI payments cos of the £16k limit and cos my missus had a job. But they said I was entitled to £60.50 a week JSA based on contributions but no other benefits. This surprised me.

It's a strange situation that because I've been careful with money and invested and saved I'm entitled to no extra benefits, but someone who has pissed it all away or just couldn't be arsed working would get their rent/mortgage/council tax etc paid or contributed to.

I paid a lot of tax and NI each month to support these people, but when I need support I get the bare minimum. Nice.

[10 Pence Short]

hoathenfold said:

to 10p short, thats not what i actually said.
i simply wondered why those that pay into the system are entitled to nothing and asked for the opinions of others.
i dont recall asking for any sympathy at all so get your facts right before you kick off.

My 'facts' only extend to you admitting you're getting a redundancy payment of more than £16k and you seem bemused that the state won't pay your expenses until it lands in your bank.

Benefits should be for people who need the money, not those who want it because they assume they're entitled.

[hoathenfold]

Do you think the woman in the paper last week with the 7 kids needed the £2m pound house to live in at our expense? and the additonal £3000 a month in benefits?
She hadnt contributed anything, the 7 kids were a lifestyle choice, and the home furnishings in the newspaper picture were a lot nicer than most peoples.
I simply wondered what others thought of this, and I respect your opinion.
What I guess most of us would like is the entire system to looked at.

[Alfa_75_Steve]

10 Pence Short said:

hoathenfold said:

to 10p short, thats not what i actually said.
i simply wondered why those that pay into the system are entitled to nothing and asked for the opinions of others.
i dont recall asking for any sympathy at all so get your facts right before you kick off.

My 'facts' only extend to you admitting you're getting a redundancy payment of more than £16k and you seem bemused that the state won't pay your expenses until it lands in your bank.

Benefits should be for people who need the money, not those who want it because they assume they're entitled.

How can you say he's less 'entitled' than someone who has pissed their money up the wall on DFS sofas and plasma screens on the tick?

The fact is, in this country, we reward the bottom feeders and penalise the people who have been sensible and worked hard, even when they fall on hard times.

One thing I will make sure of is that, when I finally get laid off, I claim for every penny I'm entitled to. I've paid enough into the system to at least expect it to help me out when things go Pete Tong - in fact, 1 month's worth of tax contributions will pretty much pay my 6 month's entitlement to JSA, ffs.

[10 Pence Short]

Alfa_75_Steve said:

10 Pence Short said:

hoathenfold said:

to 10p short, thats not what i actually said.
i simply wondered why those that pay into the system are entitled to nothing and asked for the opinions of others.
i dont recall asking for any sympathy at all so get your facts right before you kick off.

My 'facts' only extend to you admitting you're getting a redundancy payment of more than £16k and you seem bemused that the state won't pay your expenses until it lands in your bank.

Benefits should be for people who need the money, not those who want it because they assume they're entitled.

How can you say he's less 'entitled' than someone who has pissed their money up the wall on DFS sofas and plasma screens on the tick?

The fact is, in this country, we reward the bottom feeders and penalise the people who have been sensible and worked hard, even when they fall on hard times.

One thing I will make sure of is that, when I finally get laid off, I claim for every penny I'm entitled to. I've paid enough into the system to at least expect it to help me out when things go Pete Tong - in fact, 1 month's worth of tax contributions will pretty much pay my 6 month's entitlement to JSA, ffs.

Where did I say scroungers should be more entitled to state benefits?

I do think someone who is able to support themselves should leave the state to look after those who cannot. The fact that there are other people out there taking advantage does not mean it is OK to do it as well. Most people are taught at a young age that two wrongs don't make a right.

[10 Pence Short]

hoathenfold said:

Do you think the woman in the paper last week with the 7 kids needed the £2m pound house to live in at our expense? and the additonal £3000 a month in benefits?
She hadnt contributed anything, the 7 kids were a lifestyle choice, and the home furnishings in the newspaper picture were a lot nicer than most peoples.
I simply wondered what others thought of this, and I respect your opinion.
What I guess most of us would like is the entire system to looked at.

I think the whole benefits system stinks and encourages lazy people to sit on their arses waiting for their next SKY subscription to be paid by tax payers like ourselves.

That doesn't mean I live by the 'if I can't beat 'em, join 'em' mentality, though.

[AngryApples]

10 Pence Short said:

hoathenfold said:

to 10p short, thats not what i actually said.
i simply wondered why those that pay into the system are entitled to nothing and asked for the opinions of others.
i dont recall asking for any sympathy at all so get your facts right before you kick off.

My 'facts' only extend to you admitting you're getting a redundancy payment of more than £16k and you seem bemused that the state won't pay your expenses until it lands in your bank.

Benefits should be for people who need the money, not those who want it because they assume they're entitled.

As with A75 above, I just dont get your logic there

I believe if you havent contributed to the social fund you should get the absolute bare minimum, whereas the likes of Hoath should get the extras (mortgage interest, free prescriptions, free dental work, etc)

Why, when hes contributed thousands more than the majority of these scrotes should he be made to tap into his savings when they get it for sweet FA?

Whatever way you try to argue it, that is just plain wrong

Edited by AngryApples on Sunday 19th October 12:58

[hoathenfold]

When i went to sign on it was for the NI 'stamp'.
It was the people ar the Job centre that told me I would get the contribution based allowance of £60.
It just seems bizarre that if you have contributed, you then dont get it at all.
I must have contributed a good few hundred thousands in tax and NI over the last 10 years!

[10 Pence Short]

AngryApples said:

10 Pence Short said:

hoathenfold said:

to 10p short, thats not what i actually said.
i simply wondered why those that pay into the system are entitled to nothing and asked for the opinions of others.
i dont recall asking for any sympathy at all so get your facts right before you kick off.

My 'facts' only extend to you admitting you're getting a redundancy payment of more than £16k and you seem bemused that the state won't pay your expenses until it lands in your bank.

Benefits should be for people who need the money, not those who want it because they assume they're entitled.

As with A75 above, I just dont get your logic there

I believe if you havent contributed to the social fund you should get the absolute bare minimum, whereas the likes of Hoath should get the extras (mortgage interest, free prescriptions, free dental work, etc)

Why, when hes contributed thousands more than the majority of these scrotes should he be made to tap into his savings when they get it for sweet FA?

Whatever way you try to argue it, that is just plain wrong

Edited by AngryApples on Sunday 19th October 12:58

My opinion is that if you don't absolutely need it, taking any benefit money from the state is wrong, no matter how much tax you have paid.

If someone can afford to exist and meet their obligations for essentials without state benefits, why should the tax payer fund their luxuries?

[hoathenfold]

On the basis that the total I would get in Cont based job seekers allowance (which I only get for 6 months) would total less than a single months taxes and NI paid from my salary when I was working, I just think its a bit petty considering the tens of thousands i have paid in. Its hardly like Im asking them for thousands is it?

(and for the record i was completely honest when completing the application forms so its not like i was trying to fiddle it!)

And it doesnt send a good message those hard working, honest and lawabiding among us.
Non Contributor gets £150,000 a year.
Contributor gets £0 (and would only get about £1500 total if I did qualify)
Not exactly a good message is it?

[10 Pence Short]

hoathenfold said:

On the basis that the total I would get in Cont based job seekers allowance (which I only get for 6 months) would total less than a single months taxes and NI paid from my salary when I was working, I just think its a bit petty considering the tens of thousands i have paid in. Its hardly like Im asking them for thousands is it?

(and for the record i was completely honest when completing the application forms so its not like i was trying to fiddle it!)

And it doesnt send a good message those hard working, honest and lawabiding among us.
Non Contributor gets £150,000 a year.
Contributor gets £0 (and would only get about £1500 total if I did qualify)
Not exactly a good message is it?

The benefit system isn't based on you being entitled to a return on your investment. If it was, people who couldn't work would get nothing and the rich would get millions- which kind of goes against the point of it!

[King Herald]

odyssey2200 said:

hoathenfold said:

Yes - my package was more than that.
It has occured to me however that I owe my parents a few grand or so from over the years when they have helpded me out when i bought my flat. Maybe I should pay my debts off.
And incidently, I havent actually had any redundancy money yet and i wont get it for another 3 weeks.
I'll just starve til then.

IIRC you owe me a few grand too.

I could let you borrow/rent some space in my account if you like

Settle every debt you can etc to get below £16K and have another go at them.

Sorry, but when you are in that sort of situation they want proof of where the money went before you can start scrounging.

The whole idea of social welfare is for looking after people who have NOTHING, not people who have a pile and STILL want to claim from the system designed to look after the needy.

What we have here is another scrounger, with thousands in the bank, and STILL wanting to grab a few quid from the government!

Don't pull the "I haven't got the money yet" excuse, as you've worked all your life so should have something saved, to tide you over a few months at least.

ETA: Just noticed others have raised this point, so that'll learn me to read the whole thread first, won't it.

Edited by King Herald on Sunday 19th October 13:22

[hoathenfold]

Do you believe that all of the benefits only go to people who have nothing?
Ive seen have plenty of people round here who contributed nothing but have a much better standard of living than me and no work at all - ever.
And as for me being a scrounger - well Ive never taken a penny from the state and wont be getting any this time either so not sure how i qualify for that title.
As a contributor however, Im certainly guilty of that title.

[dickymint]

10 Pence Short said:

hoathenfold said:

Thanks all for your responses.
My redundancy was compulsory and i also thought i was going to get contribution based allowance.
I also thought this was available to everyone who had 'contributed'.
Maybe this isnt the case, but i will definately get my debts paid off straight away and then reapply.

You have more than £16k in the bank and expect sympathy because the state won't give you a handout?

For f*cks sake, you seem no better than the scroungers who have no intention of working.

Are you saying that you would not make a claim if you pranged your car? Or your house flooded?

[King Herald]

hoathenfold said:

Do you believe that all of the benefits only go to people who have nothing?
Ive seen have plenty of people round here who contributed nothing but have a much better standard of living than me and no work at all - ever.
And as for me being a scrounger - well Ive never taken a penny from the state and wont be getting any this time either so not sure how i qualify for that title.
As a contributor however, Im certainly guilty of that title.

No. What people are saying is why would you expect to get dole payments and such when you are already fairly well off. Which is what your post is about. You are, however, entitled to JSA, which is not means tested for the first year, or so I am lead to believe.

My wife could not claim as she hadn't, apparently, paid enough NI contributions in her previous job, despite being told by the first two interviewers that she WAS entitled to it.

Deliberately blowing your redundancy payments, to get down to the level where you are entitled to claim benefits, is not considered morally acceptable on the PH forum, hence the outrage.

Just because a certain percentage of the populace are habitually unemployed layabouts and bludgers, and have spent years learning to milk the system, does not mean everybody is entitled to get payments.

To do that, you need to hail from one of the new generations of chavs, who are raised under the impression that they are ENTITLED to a certain standard of living from the government, despite never contributing into it.

http://www.entitledto.co.uk/

Edited by King Herald on Sunday 19th October 14:09

[plasticpig]

10 Pence Short said:

AngryApples said:

10 Pence Short said:

hoathenfold said:

to 10p short, thats not what i actually said.
i simply wondered why those that pay into the system are entitled to nothing and asked for the opinions of others.
i dont recall asking for any sympathy at all so get your facts right before you kick off.

My 'facts' only extend to you admitting you're getting a redundancy payment of more than £16k and you seem bemused that the state won't pay your expenses until it lands in your bank.

Benefits should be for people who need the money, not those who want it because they assume they're entitled.

As with A75 above, I just dont get your logic there

I believe if you havent contributed to the social fund you should get the absolute bare minimum, whereas the likes of Hoath should get the extras (mortgage interest, free prescriptions, free dental work, etc)

Why, when hes contributed thousands more than the majority of these scrotes should he be made to tap into his savings when they get it for sweet FA?

Whatever way you try to argue it, that is just plain wrong

Edited by AngryApples on Sunday 19th October 12:58

My opinion is that if you don't absolutely need it, taking any benefit money from the state is wrong, no matter how much tax you have paid.

If someone can afford to exist and meet their obligations for essentials without state benefits, why should the tax payer fund their luxuries?

In that case are you planning to repay the cost of imprisoning you to the taxpayer?

[fido]

There's been some misunderstanding, JSA is not means-tested - you are entitled to £60 quid a week, just requires that you sign-on every week. And there is absolutely no stigma attached to claiming it - the civil servant on their JSA hotline (or whoever it was) actually recommended that i sign up so they can sort out my tax etc. quicker.
It's diddly squat at the end of the day, considering what you have put into the system. I was very reluctant to claim, but friends and relatives urged me to do it, and i only got 3 weeks worth (after my notice period had ended).

Edited by fido on Sunday 19th October 14:57

[hoathenfold]

Thanks all for your input.
Im not sure what all this outrage is about mind?
I was told to go and sign on for my stamp.
I wasnt 'expecting' anything.
I did and was told I would get JSA based on my contributions.
They then told me that I wouldnt.
So I asked for peoples opinions on this.
Maybe my comment re paying back some of the cash owed by me was a bit unsavoury, but there is a world of difference re this and going out to the pub everynight to get hammered.
It seems we have a real split of opinions on here on this so some good discussion!
I'm now actively looking for a new role and hopefully will be in one real soon so fingers crosssed.
Anyone looking for an ITIL Incindent/Problem/Service Desk Manager in London?
Cheers!

[Emeye]

Quinny said:

Good luck in finding something.

Especially in the current climate

Tell me about it - I work in the IT industry and I've been struggling.