h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Very well said.

I don't think that Jobseeker's Allowance is taxed; the amount an individual receives per year should be below his or her personal tax allowance and, per week, below the NI threshold.

"When there is a welfare state, employers have to set wages high enough that it's worth working for them rather than taking the welfare."

I get what you're saying but it doesn't make sense in regard to the previous calculations about full-time workers on minimum wage. Mind you, those calculations didn't (from memory) take into account child benefit and the possibility of housing benefit.

Sorry, I don't want to sound like I'm criticising. Well said

You could be right about Jobseeker's allowance. As far as I could tell from the page I looked at, it is taxable income but you're right that most of it is below the tax allowance (which is about £5,500 I think).

On the minimum wage thing, it's too late (5am!) for me to think clearly enough about it right now, but there are other reasons why you might work for a minimum wage instead of taking benefits: if you had any savings or you hadn't contributed enough NI you wouldn't be able to claim the full amount, the calculations might be different for a family with children than for a single person or couple without children, you'd have to factor other benefits into the minimum wage earner's income as you said, like child and housing benefit, etc.

<> (SC)

Sounds like a good attitude to me. *They* say that looking for a job should take up as much time a week as working a regular job would, but I'm not sure that's always possible or even necessary.

The other thing is that job hunting can get awfully discouraging and the longer it goes on the harder it is to keep getting out there. Bit of a vicious circle thing. And there's no 'one-size-fits-all' solution. Sometimes it's better to hold out for what you think you're worth, other times just taking *anything* is best, depending on the situation.

Like I said before, it's quite pointless to generalise about people on public benefit, as the personal experiences posted here have shown us.

az

I can't comment on the initial scenario as there are wa-ay too many variables. They could be on DLA for example, that hugely inflates income.

IMO the welfare state has moved away from being a safety net for those hitting hard times, between jobs, ill etc into a system where it is quite possible to live cradle to grave without working.

For example, if I lost my job I would be ineligible for Jobseekers Allowance for 6 months. What kind of a safety net is that?

People can and do survive for long periods, years on end on benefits. I'm sure it's not easy and I would find it unpleasant personally, but you cut your cloth accordingly.

<>

That's true. He's in his mid-forties, and been unable to work since being invalided out of the army about twenty years ago.

In that case he may have a pension and invalidity benefit as well.

In which case what's the problem? Surely a civilised society takes care of people who are unable to work?

That's true. Don't dispute that.

I don't think anyone has a problem with that.

Some query the line between unable and unwilling though.

In the 'boasting down the pub that I don't have a job and don't want one' scenario, isn't there also the influence of 'pub-talk'? A guy who has been desperately searching for a job to feed his family and pay off the ever-increasing debt but has been turned down for every one he's gone for which is eroding his self-confidence down to the level of a slug is hardly likely to admit that in the pub now, is he? He's more likely to say that he doesn't want a job and aint that bovvered if he cant get one.

Who believes pub-talk? The're all Einstein in there, dontcha know!

as az said, though: where do you draw the line between holding out for what you're worth, and taking a minimum-wage job which will go almost _nowhere_ towards feeding, clothing and keeping a roof over yourself - never mind your kids (and yes, I'm speaking from very bitter personal experience here, so please bear that in mind)

Lucky for my I work and I get nearly enough money (combined with his benefit and child allowance) to cover our bills. Our rent is a tad high so we'd like to move - however, that means we'd have to redecorate (normal in contracts here) and make sure that anywhere we found didn't include decorating in it. We'd also have to make sure the kitchen we have here would fit (Germany is an odd place sometimes) etc etc

Basically, given our financial situation (due to a previous unemployment of mine also) we can't move to save rent. And is finding it harder and harder not to take a job, any job, which will leave us financially worse off. Even the people at the unemployment office are horrified at the wage (ha!) he's being offered and told him always to ask for what he's worth. (but when his year of normal unemployment benefits runs out and the lower payment applies I wonder what they'll say then)

If the family from the original post have scraped together, and have done without for the rest of the year to afford their holiday - good for them. Who knows, if they have family in the Ukraine it is not beyond possibility that they were looking for work there? And for goodness sakes: an ex-soldier who is an invalid? We really do treat our boys well, don't we?

<<<
<>

That's true. He's in his mid-forties, and been unable to work since being invalided out of the army about twenty years ago.
<<<




And you didn't think to tell us this at the start of the thread???

If the man is an invalid then he's not 'unemployed' in the way you have implied throughout this thread.

>>
In which case what's the problem? Surely a civilised society takes care of people who are unable to work?
<< SWL


>>
That's true. Don't dispute that.
<< WG

If you don't dispute it then why start a thread basically challening their right as unemployed people to have what you consider a proper life? If you already knew he has a disability, and you think that the state should support people with disabilities, then what the F has this thread been about?



Maybe I misunderstood the tenor of you original post.

>>
Subject: Is it good unemployed people can afford to run cars and take 2 month holidays touring Europe?

Posted 3 Days Ago by WelshGenghis

I was just wondering this the other day.

The people I know have two cars and a camper van, actually. It's also nice that the council gave them a bigger house with a garden when they had their third child, and they don't have to pay things like council tax.

<<

I took that, and the subsequent debate, as implying there was a problem with people on a benefit having multiple vehicles and holidays.

Did I get that wrong?

F19585?thread=4352423&skip=45&show=1

QED. Jeremy Vine is waiting for your call.

<>
<<>>


So you think I should have mentioned that right at the start?

Uhm, yeah. It is a mitigating factor after all. It certainly means he isn't the type of character I thought you were talking about.

You are absolutely right.

And all the arguments put forward about such circumstances are validated. Hm... Interesting work WG...