Do people not want to work?
Discussion
ToothbrushMan said:
the housing benefit cap and bedroom tax is creating a growing problem here. its all well and good saying being on benefits is a question of money management but you are talkign about moving from a system that was providing 100% rent and 100% council tax benefit to one where its no longer full rent or full council tax benefit.
you had housing benefit paid to 100% of the monthly rent you was most likely living up to your financial limit on the other benefits you might have received for clothes broadband bus travel (both vital these days for job hunting) food gas electric etc.......to reduce the amount of housing benefit with very little increase in other benefits such as JSA means with all the will in the world you could be the greatest at money management it still doesnt magic up the shortfall in your rent and if you poach that shortfall from your other benefits what are you cutting down on or not paying at all? less food? less heating or less hot water? OK you could perhaps cut down on fags but few people smoke these days anyway.....
I think ultimately it will be landlords who will take the brunt of this as people put less and less of their rent benefit into actually paying their rent and instead using it for lifes daily expenses such as food gas electric etc.
we have all seen those on Cant Pay We will take it Away on Channel 5 where evictions take place but often not until the tenant has enjoyed 6 months, 12 months even 2 years of rent free living. im not saying they are all folk who are on the breadline and on benefits as some are serial non payers of rent even working folk but the problem will grow as the cost of living continues to rise. That or more people will give up and just make themselves homeless and fall off the radar completely.
In the worlds 6th richest nation - a sad state of affairs. Those committing benefit fraud should be targetted rather than everyone being tarnished with the same broadbrush approach and having the burden of proving to the state that you are not one of the fraudsters.
Agreed, I did put an example of this in my previous post to demonstrate how the cap affects people.you had housing benefit paid to 100% of the monthly rent you was most likely living up to your financial limit on the other benefits you might have received for clothes broadband bus travel (both vital these days for job hunting) food gas electric etc.......to reduce the amount of housing benefit with very little increase in other benefits such as JSA means with all the will in the world you could be the greatest at money management it still doesnt magic up the shortfall in your rent and if you poach that shortfall from your other benefits what are you cutting down on or not paying at all? less food? less heating or less hot water? OK you could perhaps cut down on fags but few people smoke these days anyway.....
I think ultimately it will be landlords who will take the brunt of this as people put less and less of their rent benefit into actually paying their rent and instead using it for lifes daily expenses such as food gas electric etc.
we have all seen those on Cant Pay We will take it Away on Channel 5 where evictions take place but often not until the tenant has enjoyed 6 months, 12 months even 2 years of rent free living. im not saying they are all folk who are on the breadline and on benefits as some are serial non payers of rent even working folk but the problem will grow as the cost of living continues to rise. That or more people will give up and just make themselves homeless and fall off the radar completely.
In the worlds 6th richest nation - a sad state of affairs. Those committing benefit fraud should be targetted rather than everyone being tarnished with the same broadbrush approach and having the burden of proving to the state that you are not one of the fraudsters.
I relation to fraud, my local job centre has a 2 year backlog of ESA claims. So people can put in stating they are disabled and their application wont even get looked at for those 2 years.
Like most government departments, being underfunded is creating more and costlier problems.
R12HCO said:
CMA (new CSA) from every father.......its a good career move.
On the basis that;A) They pay
B) They earn enough to make the minimum amount the CMA ask for actually worthwhile.
My Partners ex pays £300 a month for his two children. I can assure you that it is barely any help. But that's what the CMA state, so when asked if he wants to contribute to swimming lessons, music lessons etc, the answer is that he 'pays what is advised'.
So he thinks his children are worth £34.61 each a week. Delightful.
Christmassss said:
My Partners ex pays £300 a month for his two children. I can assure you that it is barely any help.
It's £300/mth more than you'd be getting if, say, he'd died. And £300/mth more than (I can't think of the right word here so excuse the term) 'regular' families would get.Sheepshanks said:
It's £300/mth more than you'd be getting if, say, he'd died. And £300/mth more than (I can't think of the right word here so excuse the term) 'regular' families would get.
I think the general consensus is that if he dies, he or his money wouldn't be missed.I understand your point, my view is that the money is supposed to provide for your children. I don't believe the minimum CMA payment is enough. Obviously i can only use my own experiences as a basis for this.
Total costs for those children alone this month is around 2k. (nursery, food, clothes, clubs)
MYOB said:
I went for an interview today, that listed a business degree as a requirement. This I have.
But yet they questioned me on being over qualified to do the role.
Can't win!
My Partner had this problem, previously a project manager for an insurance company, but looking for P/T to fit school hours. She constantly got declined because she was too experienced and they didn't think she would stay in the role!But yet they questioned me on being over qualified to do the role.
Can't win!
MYOB said:
I went for an interview today, that listed a business degree as a requirement. This I have.
But yet they questioned me on being over qualified to do the role.
Can't win!
yeah just bringing the thread back away from benefits to wanting work...................Ive had this and its so annoying. I think the companies are wise to the likes of you and I fishing for what I call "in-fill" jobs like this (I have gone for entry level paper pushing roles instead of higher paying advisory roles) to tide us over. they dont want somebody clearly over qualified coming in and doing 3 months or 6 months then finding something else and blazing them out. I was rather hoping I could hood wink some of them by saying all the right things but its not worked so far. I just want some money to pay the mortgage and if I didnt want a job I wouldnt apply for the job where I am clearly over qualified but thats my choice to better myself later on.........I could argue that is it better for the company to get me/us in for 6 months or just leave the position unfilled and creating a back log for the existing staff to try and handle?But yet they questioned me on being over qualified to do the role.
Can't win!
In an interview if I get told youve over qualified why do you want this job I heard a great answer "if you was having an operation next week would you want the newly qualified surgeon or the surgeon with 15 years experience?"
MYOB said:
I went for an interview today, that listed a business degree as a requirement. This I have.
But yet they questioned me on being over qualified to do the role.
Can't win!
Happened to me when I applied to be a postman! Surely everyone is over qualified to push letters through letter boxes and walk. But yet they questioned me on being over qualified to do the role.
Can't win!
It’s a rediculous excuse for not employing someone.
oh just to add to the above.................ive also been making it clear I will also consider fixed contract assignment for say 3, 6, 9 or even 12 months (many companies are due to Brexit uncertainty).
It might just help you over the line in cases where if the role was permanent they might ordinarily wheel out and use the "youre over qualified for this job" line..........
It might just help you over the line in cases where if the role was permanent they might ordinarily wheel out and use the "youre over qualified for this job" line..........
BoRED S2upid said:
MYOB said:
I went for an interview today, that listed a business degree as a requirement. This I have.
But yet they questioned me on being over qualified to do the role.
Can't win!
Happened to me when I applied to be a postman! Surely everyone is over qualified to push letters through letter boxes and walk. But yet they questioned me on being over qualified to do the role.
Can't win!
It’s a rediculous excuse for not employing someone.
Christmassss said:
My Partner had this problem, previously a project manager for an insurance company, but looking for P/T to fit school hours. She constantly got declined because she was too experienced and they didn't think she would stay in the role!
I have tried the part time options too - did she get a job eventually?MYOB said:
I have tried the part time options too - did she get a job eventually?
She did, starts November. She got a role in a council department that offers total flexibility on hours, so perfect for fitting around school hours.I think the total search time was around 6 months.
Edited by Christmassss on Tuesday 25th September 10:26
Christmassss said:
She did, starts November. She got a role in a council department that offers total flexibility on hours, so perfect for fitting around school hours.
Excellent, good pension scheme too. Not as good as the old scheme but still good. I've tried with the local authorities too. No joy so far.
MYOB said:
I went for an interview today, that listed a business degree as a requirement. This I have.
But yet they questioned me on being over qualified to do the role.
Can't win!
That is nuts. I was going to suggest hiding some qualifications based on role you're applying for but if they asked for it and you'd not included it, you'd not have got an interview. Unless you appeared too experienced in the interview, so I guess next time dumb down a bit? Haha. But yet they questioned me on being over qualified to do the role.
Can't win!
bmwmike said:
That is nuts. I was going to suggest hiding some qualifications based on role you're applying for but if they asked for it and you'd not included it, you'd not have got an interview. Unless you appeared too experienced in the interview, so I guess next time dumb down a bit? Haha.
I suspect they wanted a fresh faced recent graduate who they could whip into shape, rather than somebody with experience who knows how to suck eggs.Christmassss said:
On the basis that;
A) They pay
B) They earn enough to make the minimum amount the CMA ask for actually worthwhile.
My Partners ex pays £300 a month for his two children. I can assure you that it is barely any help. But that's what the CMA state, so when asked if he wants to contribute to swimming lessons, music lessons etc, the answer is that he 'pays what is advised'.
So he thinks his children are worth £34.61 each a week. Delightful.
£69.22A) They pay
B) They earn enough to make the minimum amount the CMA ask for actually worthwhile.
My Partners ex pays £300 a month for his two children. I can assure you that it is barely any help. But that's what the CMA state, so when asked if he wants to contribute to swimming lessons, music lessons etc, the answer is that he 'pays what is advised'.
So he thinks his children are worth £34.61 each a week. Delightful.
BoRED S2upid said:
Happened to me when I applied to be a postman! Surely everyone is over qualified to push letters through letter boxes and walk.
It’s a rediculous excuse for not employing someone.
To be fair, being able to read and spell correctly is a basic requirement for being a postie.It’s a rediculous excuse for not employing someone.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff