John Humphrys - Future State of Welfare BBC 2/HD

[martin84]

RHY64E said:

My point is a very simple one, those that pay into the system should get appropriate support when they need it.

You still haven't told me what 'appropriate support' is. What is appropriate? Where do we draw the line? Is appropriate 'here have 6k a month for 2 years for your Cheshire mansion, we'll just take disability allowance away from those who cant walk so as you dont have to move to a smaller house.' Where is the line drawn for 'appropriate' in your view?

RHY64E said:

A hostel in Burnley would be more appropriate than a flat in Islington, and food stamps would be more appropriate than cash that can be spent on cigarettes and booze.

Putting people in a hostel in one of the most deprived parts of the country is unlikely to get people off the welfare bill which has to be the aim, not just make it cheaper for them to be on it but to empower them to get off it completely. It shouldnt be an Islington flat either but a happy medium is needed here.

RHY64E said:

If we cut back on benefit payments to non-contributors then there would be sufficient left to support those who have paid if and when they need it.

Much like the Conservative's i feel you're over-estimating just what can be saved from the Welfare bill. They think its a massive goldmine of savings and im not convinced. The only way to remove enough of it to pay 'contributors' more would be to severely cut benefits for the worse off which is a risky enough move if you have a healthy majority to afford losing by the next election but Cameron's lot couldnt risk anything that stupid.

cymtriks said:

Quite simply Mr Sugar isn't worth excluding from the system because to exclude him would cause far more issues than you'd ever solve.

You're right its a small minority. 0.5% of DLA claims are fraudulent which proves the DLA system works pretty well but thats not stopping the Government throwing lots of £££ into 'reforming' the system despite the risk of not saving anything at the end of it. Benefit fraud accounts for only 2.4% of the welfare bill yet they're treating it like the biggest financial drain in human history and spending - possibly wasting - millions on trying to fix it.

cymtriks said:

This is the point. Arguably there should be a link. Arguably someone with a large, and not easily reducable outgoings, who has also paid in large ammounts over the years should get a bit more back

Again, why is the state responsible for the fact you have 'not easily reducable outgoings?' Nobody signed their name on those outgoings except you.

Its not financially viable for the Treasury and even if it was i still dont feel it'd be right to give higher earners higher benefits. I just dont see how that can look good for the country in any way. Benefits are to help people with no money. Not to protect people who used to have quite a bit of money. Managing budgets is something i have experience in and im sure i could make it work fiscally but im not sure people would like it.

cymtriks said:

It's all their problem now? Would you regard this view as acceptable if someone in a comfortable financial position made it about those already on benefits?

I dont see how you can tell someone who was born into poverty and has never had any money that its their own fault.

cymtriks said:

This is not the same as saying they should be entitled to remain there for the rest of their lives though, strangely, it seems that those who contribute nothing are allowed to claim for as long as they like.

How long should they be allowed to claim then? A month? 6 months? A year?

People with nothing are 'allowed' to claim because they have no income but when or if they ever gain one they then wont be able to claim, just as you cant. Its very simple.

cymtriks said:

The bit you are avoiding regarding entitlement is the issue of contribution. Why shouldn't someone who has contributed a lot feel entitled to a bit more?

Because if we do that then where does it end? A drunk getting NHS liver operations faster because they paid more tax by buying the drink? People in 5litre Jaguar's having more right to use the road than people in Fiesta's because they pay more tax? Taxes are not ringfenced in this country as nobody has any 'extra' entitlement to anything.

cymtriks said:

Your remark about two X5's is a straw man argument. On the income levels mentioned a family wouldn't have one let alone two.

Yet you seem to think everyone on benefits can afford Plasma's and iPhones. (I apologise if it wasnt you who said that but somebody did so im just making a point) Should i speak more generally and rephrase? I dont feel having to change two cars for one lesser car to be the sort of deprivation that the state needs to waste money on protecting the middle classes from.

chris watton said:

We pay national INSURANCE the whole point of which was that it was supposed to be a countrywide insurance scheme.

it is no longer fullfilling its purpose as an insurance scheme

Yes and it was set up in 1911 and plenty has changed since then. I agree it no longer fulfills its original purpose. Road tax used to be ringfenced to pay for roads but things change and all systems have to adapt to the demands of changing times. Perhaps abolishing N.I and reforming other taxes to makeup the shortfall would be better as then we wouldnt have this argument. Income tax means nothing to benefits as you dont pay it for the state to put it in a piggy bank for when you need it later, its there to pay for schools, hospitals, public services, aid for nations with space programs etc.

RHY64E said:

The system appears to say, spend all of your hard earned savings then, when you have nothing left, you might get some assistance

Its saying 'if you have money you dont need state support.' Which is very reasonable. They dont want you to use 'all' your savings, just enough to take you under £16k. If you had £15,999 and no household income you'd be entitled to the same benefits as someone with nothing.

Many of my questions have not been answered here. The biggest one is why anybody would want to claim money from the state if they didnt have to. The next one is why in times of austerity and being told we need to take 'personal responsibility' and reliance of any sort on the state is unsustainable, why there is a quiet middle class campaign going for those with more money to get bigger benefits as surely that goes against everything we've been saying.

My other question about whether anybody agrees elements of win/lose, boom/bust, up/down etc need to exist for society to work has been glossed over. I dont see how the natural order of society can work if we ensure that we lock the middle classes into the middle class as though they have some god given entitlement to stay there all their lives. If they drop down and lose their house someone else will rise up and take it. Its the circle of life. In other words, st happens.

I was unaware that the middle class was supposed to be a lifetime membership club which you are immediately entitled to upon initial entry. We talk about 'entitlement' on this forum but to me that is the most galling sense of entitlement ive come across so far.

Edited by martin84 on Saturday 29th October 23:18

[cymtriks]

martin84 said:

You still haven't told me what 'appropriate support' is. What is appropriate? Where do we draw the line? Is appropriate 'here have 6k a month for 2 years for your Cheshire mansion, we'll just take disability allowance away from those who cant walk so as you dont have to move to a smaller house.' Where is the line drawn for 'appropriate' in your view?
+++++
Its not financially viable for the Treasury and even if it was i still dont feel it'd be right to give higher earners higher benefits. I just dont see how that can look good for the country in any way. Benefits are to help people with no money. Not to protect people who used to have quite a bit of money. Managing budgets is something i have experience in and im sure i could make it work fiscally but im not sure people would like it.
++++
How long should they be allowed to claim then? A month? 6 months? A year?
+++++
Because if we do that then where does it end? A drunk getting NHS liver operations faster because they paid more tax by buying the drink? People in 5litre Jaguar's having more right to use the road than people in Fiesta's because they pay more tax? Taxes are not ringfenced in this country as nobody has any 'extra' entitlement to anything.

It really is very simple.

If someone contributes more why should they not get a bit more back when they need it?

All this bluster about "But where will it end!!!" followed by grossly unlikely scenarios or irrelevant examples doesn't change this. Many benefits are limited in some way, job seekers is one of them, so just keep the existing time limit.

martin84 said:

Its saying 'if you have money you dont need state support.' Which is very reasonable. They dont want you to use 'all' your savings, just enough to take you under £16k. If you had £15,999 and no household income you'd be entitled to the same benefits as someone with nothing.

Again, why is the state responsible for the fact you have 'not easily reducable outgoings?' Nobody signed their name on those outgoings except you.

If income stops suddenly outgoings canot be easily reduced. Utility bills will be virtually impossible to reduce by much. I have been trying to sell a house that is fully redecorated and has no onward chain for over a year. It is priced several thousand pounds less than all three estate agents valuations. Its just the market at the moment. A car can be sold but your continued assertion that slightly better off households have fleets of expensive cars is just nonsense.

Conversely why is the state responsible for people not even trying to improve their situation, or making their situation worse, when they are already being supported by the state?

martin84 said:

Many of my questions have not been answered here. The biggest one is why anybody would want to claim money from the state if they didnt have to. The next one is why in times of austerity and being told we need to take 'personal responsibility' and reliance of any sort on the state is unsustainable, why there is a quiet middle class campaign going for those with more money to get bigger benefits as surely that goes against everything we've been saying.

My other question about whether anybody agrees elements of win/lose, boom/bust, up/down etc need to exist for society to work has been glossed over. I dont see how the natural order of society can work if we ensure that we lock the middle classes into the middle class as though they have some god given entitlement to stay there all their lives. If they drop down and lose their house someone else will rise up and take it. Its the circle of life. In other words, st happens.

I was unaware that the middle class was supposed to be a lifetime membership club which you are immediately entitled to upon initial entry. We talk about 'entitlement' on this forum but to me that is the most galling sense of entitlement ive come across so far.

Already answered and very simple.

Most people with a suddenly reduced income cannot just stop or sell stuff. The state gains nothing, and arguably stands to lose more, by not recognising this. Hence basing benefits on contributions would seem reasonable.

As for responsibility those who have most also appear to be responsible for contributing the most. Once again basing benefits on contributions would seem reasonable.

Your claim that this ammounts to an attempt to "lock in the middle class" is not true. All I have argued for is that some benefits, particularly job seekers, should be related to contributions.

As for "If they drop down and lose their house someone else will rise up and take it. Its the circle of life. In other words, st happens." you do realise that the next step will be that the formerly self supporting people will now be state dependent for a very long time don't you?

No one has argued for lifetime support of middle clas incomes, yet another straw man argument. Once again the awkward little fact that after paying for everything it is not unreasonable to expect a bit more back is glossed over.

Relating some benefits to contributions would vastly reduce costs. Those who pay most in are also those least likely to claim for very long. Life on benefits would be impossible, at least for the those claiming contribution based allowances.

[martin84]

cymtriks said:

If someone contributes more why should they not get a bit more back when they need it?

Once again we come back to our definitions of need. Do people with 20k in savings need state benefits? I dont think so.

cymtriks said:

...just keep the existing time limit.

I assume you mean the 6 months limit for JSA. So how much do you expect to be paid in this 6 months?

cymtriks said:

I have been trying to sell a house that is fully redecorated and has no onward chain for over a year. It is priced several thousand pounds less than all three estate agents valuations. Its just the market at the moment

So now you want it for over a year? Not 6 months? At what point should the state essentially say 'right, you've had long enough to sell your house now, we're cutting you loose' then? Quantify it for me.

cymtriks said:

Most people with a suddenly reduced income cannot just stop or sell stuff.

I think that applies to pretty much everybody.

cymtriks said:

As for responsibility those who have most also appear to be responsible for contributing the most. Once again basing benefits on contributions would seem reasonable.

Up to what financial limit? Surely we dont want it wide open for sacked football managers on £5million a year to be 'entitled' to a chunk of their former salary at the expense of the taxpayer so quantify for me where the limit would be.

cymtriks said:

As for "If they drop down and lose their house someone else will rise up and take it. Its the circle of life. In other words, st happens." you do realise that the next step will be that the formerly self supporting people will now be state dependent for a very long time don't you?

I dont see how a middle class person with a wealth of work experience would end up state dependant for the rest of their lives. Couple of years maybe but they'll be back, like Herpes. Anyway, like i said, when a door is closed a window opens etc...

cymtriks said:

Conversely why is the state responsible for people not even trying to improve their situation, or making their situation worse, when they are already being supported by the state?

I thought we'd already established that we agree on this matter quite some time ago. The state shouldnt be, we've already covered this.

cymtriks said:

Once again the awkward little fact that after paying for everything it is not unreasonable to expect a bit more back is glossed over.

Again, what is a bit more?

We've already established we dont agree on principle. You feel benefits should be (or extended to include) a pay more-get more exercise to protect the middle classes and i feel they should exist purely for those with nothing to keep them off the streets and be 100% savings and income based, ie if you have savings or an income - you dont get any benefits. We also have differing views on the word 'need' obviously.

Neither of us are going to change our mind on principle of the system so why dont you start giving me some numbers instead to work with. Start telling me what 'reasonable' and 'appropriate' payments would be in your system. And how long is 'reasonable' to receive them and where the line in the sand should be drawn ie how long should the state give you to sell your house and reduce your outgoings? Things like that.

If you can justify it to me fiscally we may find some common ground because you wont convince me of 'benefits for the middle class' any other way.

[cymtriks]

Limiting benefits to those with less than a set ammount of savings is means testing. Means testing creates the poverty trap and generates all manner of dodges to "hide" money from the state.

For example several people I know have stated that their retirement plans include renting and not owning a property as they've seen their parents forced to hand over the vast majority of their lives efforts to cover their care which is exactly the same care that they'd have got if they'd turned up at the care homes with nothing left. Is this something we should encouage?

Conversely if we reject means testing some wealthy people will get benefits and if we also make them contribution based then they might get a bit more. I would argue that this is fair as they have contributed more and also practical as it avoids reducing someone to the point where they have to be state dependent just to make a point. In addition those who got most would be those most likely not to qualify for the benefits for long and most likely to carry on contributing a lot in the future.

[martin84]

cymtriks said:

Limiting benefits to those with less than a set ammount of savings is means testing. Means testing creates the poverty trap and generates all manner of dodges to "hide" money from the state.

It also stops us giving money to people who dont need it.

cymtriks said:

For example several people I know have stated that their retirement plans include renting and not owning a property as they've seen their parents forced to hand over the vast majority of their lives efforts to cover their care which is exactly the same care that they'd have got if they'd turned up at the care homes with nothing left. Is this something we should encouage?

The system hasnt caught up with people living longer, that much is clear. When these systems were set up it was based on the assumption the state would only be paying you a pension for 5 years then you'd die. Now its more like 15 years, the Government recognises this and is looking at pension reform. There may be an argument to change the means testing procedures for those of retirement age but that doesnt mean we have to give 30 year olds with 20k in savings benefits.

The other slightly morbid part is that with there being a chronic housing shortage, forcing some old peple to sell their home is one - unfortunately required - way of freeing up property for sale. Its the dark side to this equation that none of us would want to have to debate. It also removes any childrens inheritances which forces them into private renting, a good boost for landlords. Like i say its morbid but its true.

cymtriks said:

Conversely if we reject means testing some wealthy people will get benefits and if we also make them contribution based then they might get a bit more.

I would argue with a 150 million zillion quid deficit thats an outlay we simply cannot afford to risk. There still needs to be a cut off somewhere. Maybe if you were paying the top rate of tax within 5 years prior to claiming you arent entitled to benefits or something like that (on the assumption you should have money already) we couldnt leave it wide open for every slippery rich bd to syphon state cash off.

cymtriks said:

I would argue that this is fair as they have contributed more and also practical as it avoids reducing someone to the point where they have to be state dependent just to make a point.

Is receiving x amount of your former wage while on benefits for a year to give you time to sell your house not a year of 'state dependancy' then?

cymtriks said:

In addition those who got most would be those most likely not to qualify for the benefits for long and most likely to carry on contributing a lot in the future.

I think it encourages reckless spending and poor financial planning amongst the middle classes because they'd know the state would bail them out to subsidise their better-off lifestyle if they get it wrong.

Im still waiting for some quantification or some numbers on this matter.

How much more benefits should long term contributors receive?
What is a reasonable amount?
What is a reasonable time limit?

If you were setting up the system what would the numbers be?

[JagLover]

martin84 said:

Once again we come back to our definitions of need. Do people with 20k in savings need state benefits? I dont think so.

The issue isn't really with savings but that in most cases those who go from a two earner to one earner household will receive nothing but the pitiful JSA and their bills will remain at the previous level.

[martin84]

JagLover said:

The issue isn't really with savings but that in most cases those who go from a two earner to one earner household will receive nothing but the pitiful JSA and their bills will remain at the previous level.

Yes. Most cases being the operative word and it really is most cases as well. This is an issue which affects the normal working class as well as the middle classes. If a household has two earners in full time work on little more than the minimum wage (or on the NMW in some cases) and one of them loses their job all they get is the JSA for 6 months and are entitled to very little else. This isnt just a middle class 50k household suburban issue affecting the 'middle classes who power the economy' issue this is an issue for people much further down than them as well.

Maybe thats why im finding the idea of 'benefits for middle classes' to be so distasteful as with the topic focus purely on the middle class its being billed as an issue which only affects them when thats far from the case. Its like the 'squeezed middle' have only just realised that this is how it works because their perfect world has taken a dent and forced them to look out of the cul de sac at the rest of the world.

[MartyPubes]

martin84 said:

Yes. Most cases being the operative word and it really is most cases as well. This is an issue which affects the normal working class as well as the middle classes. If a household has two earners in full time work on little more than the minimum wage (or on the NMW in some cases) and one of them loses their job all they get is the JSA for 6 months and are entitled to very little else. This isnt just a middle class 50k household suburban issue affecting the 'middle classes who power the economy' issue this is an issue for people much further down than them as well.

Agreed, but the gap between JSA and the working class income is likely to be smaller than the gap between JSA and the middle class income. Therefore the middle class family are less likely to be able to meet their obligations. Considering they will have paid more in than the working class person why shouldn't they get more out?

Edit: I can just sense a 'it's their own fault for not living like the working class family' coming already...

[martin84]

MartyPubes said:

Agreed, but the gap between JSA and the working class income is likely to be smaller than the gap between JSA and the middle class income.

Well so it bloody should be, if it wasnt then what incentive is there to work hard and get a better job? It also depends on how you look at it. The chances are the working class income means they have virtually no savings or anything to fall back on and even with lower living expenses they'd find themselves unable to pay them after a fortnight of unemployment. It doesnt matter how low your living expenses are if you havent got any money, it instantly makes them too high regardless of how much they are.

MartyPubes said:

Therefore the middle class family are less likely to be able to meet their obligations.

Obligations they signed up to. Wheres my violin? Is that the State's problem or responsibility? Or is it the individuals problem or responsibility? Again i ask why the state should pay to keep people in the middle class bracket, they have no god given entitlement to remain in such a bracket.

MartyPubes said:

Considering they will have paid more in than the working class person why shouldn't they get more out?

Because they will also have earned more money and have had more scope to put themselves in a more secure financial position as to not require as much state help. You dont pay your tax for it to be a piggy bank for when you require it, tax goes to pay for what the country needs. With 'need' being the most operative word. If we start running a system where 'he who pays most gets most' then everyone who earns more than the person beside them will think the Government should cater more for them than those 'beneath' them and thats a road to unelectability (is that a word?)

[MartyPubes]

martin84 said:

Obligations they signed up to. Wheres my violin?

Ahhhh ok, I see your angle...

[martin84]

MartyPubes said:

Ahhhh ok, I see your angle...

Ive already said what my angle is very clearly. My angle is that state help should be there for people who need it. Not to subsidise middle income earners or run as a reward scheme. Whichever way you worked this it would increase the Welfare bill, theres no technical way round that brutal fact. Its unaffordable and the Government only wants to see the Welfare bill go one way and thats down.

If one of you were to tell me what 'getting a bit more out', 'reasonable amounts' etc actually were with numbers or percentages i may be able to understand your arguments better. Ive already said i wont change my view on the principle of it so you'll have to use numbers to convince me.

[cymtriks]

martin84 said:

cymtriks said:

Limiting benefits to those with less than a set ammount of savings is means testing. Means testing creates the poverty trap and generates all manner of dodges to "hide" money from the state.

It also stops us giving money to people who dont need it.

Expensive, time consuming, wasteful, bureaucratic and probably saving less than if it was abolished.

The poverty trap and all the anomalies created by means testing are far more damaging to society than a tiny number of well off people claiming a bit more for a short time.

martin84 said:

cymtriks said:

For example several people I know have stated that their retirement plans include renting and not owning a property as they've seen their parents forced to hand over the vast majority of their lives efforts to cover their care which is exactly the same care that they'd have got if they'd turned up at the care homes with nothing left. Is this something we should encouage?

The system hasnt caught up with people living longer, that much is clear. When these systems were set up it was based on the assumption the state would only be paying you a pension for 5 years then you'd die. Now its more like 15 years, the Government recognises this and is looking at pension reform. There may be an argument to change the means testing procedures for those of retirement age but that doesnt mean we have to give 30 year olds with 20k in savings benefits.

The other slightly morbid part is that with there being a chronic housing shortage, forcing some old peple to sell their home is one - unfortunately required - way of freeing up property for sale. Its the dark side to this equation that none of us would want to have to debate. It also removes any childrens inheritances which forces them into private renting, a good boost for landlords. Like i say its morbid but its true.

It doesn't need a debate, its obvious.

Inceased longevity + immigration + less familly life + restrictions on building land = shortage of houses + high cost of housing

So given that we don't want to cull people or concrete over greenbelts that leaves less immigration and more support for family life (which could mean simply stoping taking so much from them and pandering to factors that cause more breakdown, a whole other debate)

martin84 said:

cymtriks said:

Conversely if we reject means testing some wealthy people will get benefits and if we also make them contribution based then they might get a bit more.

I would argue with a 150 million zillion quid deficit thats an outlay we simply cannot afford to risk. There still needs to be a cut off somewhere. Maybe if you were paying the top rate of tax within 5 years prior to claiming you arent entitled to benefits or something like that (on the assumption you should have money already) we couldnt leave it wide open for every slippery rich bd to syphon state cash off.

Why do you assume that making unemployment related benefits contribution dependent would cost any more? Other areas of the system can also be changed to make savings anyway.

Once again there is a hint of class hatred and some socialist spite and envy in your response. I'm not claiming that all benefit claimants are scrounging scum, in fact I've repeatedly suggested that the benefit trap is the real culprit and not the people stuck in it so why do you feel the need to lash out? It makes your assertions look more like spiteful social engineering than practical help for society as a whole.

martin84 said:

cymtriks said:

I would argue that this is fair as they have contributed more and also practical as it avoids reducing someone to the point where they have to be state dependent just to make a point.

Is receiving x amount of your former wage while on benefits for a year to give you time to sell your house not a year of 'state dependancy' then?

cymtriks said:

In addition those who got most would be those most likely not to qualify for the benefits for long and most likely to carry on contributing a lot in the future.

I think it encourages reckless spending and poor financial planning amongst the middle classes because they'd know the state would bail them out to subsidise their better-off lifestyle if they get it wrong.

Why the constant negativity to a perfectly reasonable suggestion?

Pay more in, get more out if you need it. Why is this so abhorent?

The dependency might cost more initially but it protects society from being liable for greater dependency further down the line.

The intent is not to protect the middle class but to maintain as many self supporting, and contributing, people as possible. Again this would seem to be a far more pragmatic aim than pandering to socialist spite and envy.

Surely it is best for everyone if contributors keep contributing.

martin84 said:

Im still waiting for some quantification or some numbers on this matter.

How much more benefits should long term contributors receive?
What is a reasonable amount?
What is a reasonable time limit?

If you were setting up the system what would the numbers be?

Directly proportional to contributions for duration of JSA
Afterwards as everyone else

[martin84]

I shouldve known that the socialism and 'envy' card would be played eventually. Its surprising its taken four pages for it to happen. Its odd that im sat here campaigning for less Government spending, less state support, shrinking of the public sector and less state dependancy for all and being accused of socialist engineering.

cymtriks said:

Expensive, time consuming, wasteful, bureaucratic and probably saving less than if it was abolished.

The poverty trap and all the anomalies created by means testing are far more damaging to society than a tiny number of well off people claiming a bit more for a short time.

If we're going to start putting a price on doing the right thing and adjust accordingly we'll decide its too expensive to send people to Prison for murder so we just wont bother.

You dont need to tell me the running of most Government systems probably damages the scope for revenue from it anyway.

cymtriks said:

Inceased longevity + immigration + less familly life + restrictions on building land = shortage of houses + high cost of housing

So given that we don't want to cull people or concrete over greenbelts that leaves less immigration and more support for family life (which could mean simply stoping taking so much from them and pandering to factors that cause more breakdown, a whole other debate)

Well we keep being told we cant do anything about immigration so that leaves us with build more. And seeing as only 9% of Britain's land is built on im sure we've got room for a few houses here and there but then comes the question of how to pay for it. If forcing some old dear into a care home by making her sell her house frees up a property for sale when otherwise there wouldnt be one then thats a morbid part of the system which has to remain if we're not going to build more.

cymtriks said:

Why do you assume that making unemployment related benefits contribution dependent would cost any more?

A) You cant reduce basic cost of living overnight so the people at the bottom will still need the money, anything less and you'll be putting people on the street so any extra outlay will obviously add to the total bill.

B) The Government would be responsible for the reform and anytime any Government does anything it usually ends up costing more money.

cymtriks said:

Pay more in, get more out if you need it. Why is this so abhorent?

Again we come back to our definitions of need which appear to be in contrast to each other.

cymtriks said:

The intent is not to protect the middle class but to maintain as many self supporting, and contributing, people as possible. Again this would seem to be a far more pragmatic aim than pandering to socialist spite and envy.

You're hardly self supporting if by earning plenty of money you cant survive for a short time without it and can we put the 'socialists spite against middle classes' nonsense to bed look because its very boring.

cymtriks said:

Surely it is best for everyone if contributors keep contributing.

Not if in times of non-contributions we throw extra money back at them. Net result = no change.

cymtriks said:

Directly proportional to contributions for duration of JSA
Afterwards as everyone else

Still no numbers in there so i'll do some for you. What about a system where (savings permitted, perhaps a higher threshold) if made unemployed you would receive 50% of your contributions back in installments over 6 months before dropping down to base rate JSA for 6 months and then nothing after that. Is that the kind of thing you're on about?

I know you feel i have a lot of resentment and anger against people who earn more than me and that may be partly true and i'll explain why. Its been suggested plenty so lets clear it up. When i was made redundant about four years ago it was less than a year after being put on the highest wage i've ever earned (around £36k if you were interested) having spent two years on considerably less than that proving that i was best for the job. My hard work seemed to pay off and then i was kicked in the face so yes im bitter because after a spell unemployed i was then earning £15k as a Job Centre advisor. I earn more than that now in the - in many peoples eyes - vile role of credit controller but maybe my status as 'nearly man' makes me highly resentful.

Managing budgets and controlling numbers is the sort of thing i have a lot of experience in and im sure i could make a system like this work properly fiscally i just dont know if it would be popular.

[MartyPubes]

martin84 said:

I shouldve known that the socialism and 'envy' card would be played eventually.

To be fair, it's hard not to play that card when your every post is dripping it...

It just seems like there's a fundamental difference in how different people perceive the idea of unemployment benefits.

You seem to think it should provide a minimum standard of living for everyone - fair enough.

I feel it should be a crutch for someone to use whilst they get back on their feet. I don't feel it's 'fair' that someone should lose their house/car/lifestyle for being unemployed for a period of a few months, whilst someone who had less doesn't have that impact on their lifestyle. Especially when the middle class person has likely contributed more, and is likely to do so again so long as their life doesn't completely fall apart.

[martin84]

MartyPubes said:

It just seems like there's a fundamental difference in how different people perceive the idea of unemployment benefits.

You seem to think it should provide a minimum standard of living for everyone - fair enough.

I feel it should be a crutch for someone to use whilst they get back on their feet. I don't feel it's 'fair' that someone should lose their house/car/lifestyle for being unemployed for a period of a few months

Life's not fair. Deal with it.

MartyPubes said:

whilst someone who had less doesn't have that impact on their lifestyle.

Someone with nothing has nothing to lose. Lucky them. Yay. You almost make poverty sound worthwhile. I could easily say at least the middle class person had something to lose in the first place. Better to have loved and lost and all that...

[Sticks.]

martin84 said:

Life's not fair. Deal with it.

Got fed up with reasoning then?

The long and the short of it is there are advantages and disadvantages to both (National)insurance-based and means tested benefit systems, which possibly explains why in the UK we have the best, or possibly worst, of both worlds.

[MartyPubes]

martin84 said:

Life's not fair. Deal with it.

The man's a debating colossus!

[RYH64E]

martin84 said:

When i was made redundant about four years ago it was less than a year after being put on the highest wage i've ever earned (around £36k if you were interested) having spent two years on considerably less than that proving that i was best for the job. My hard work seemed to pay off and then i was kicked in the face so yes im bitter.

If it makes you feel any better, your highest wage will be about half my 2011 tax bill, but I'm not bitter.

[MartyPubes]

RYH64E said:

If it makes you feel any better, your highest wage will be about half my 2011 tax bill, but I'm not bitter.

I'm sure the OP appreciates your contribution, and doesn't resent the fact that you are able to provide a lifestyle for yourself and any family you may have which he is incapable of providing for himself.

[otolith]

Perhaps people ought to be able to opt out of paying into the state unemployment insurance system if they can demonstrate that they have taken out adequate private cover - I reckon what I pay in tax towards the benefit safety net would get me a much better return than the state system offers, should I ever need to claim on it...