We have a different understanding of the word ‘practical’ then, by my definition, the fact that people are doing it proves it’s practical.
I wondered if that was the case. When I took severance several years ago it was for six months without any means testing. I suppose I'd have been one of the ones Super Tyke complains about at that stage. Then again, he never saw my tax deductions for the previous couple of decades! There was a certain irony in leaving my Beemer across the road at Lidl when I went to sign on! (Drive a Polo now I'm a poor pensioner! )
Have I complained about anyone signing on after losing a job? Or did I specifically and quite clearly say people who turn down jobs because they want to stay on benefits?
think Jarvis can is preparing a leadership tilt he recognises how mouth-wateringly unpopular. Unelectable and undemocratic Starmer is.
I filled in all the forms online and was surprised to find questions about my income. At the end I was told I wouldn't get anything. Are you saying that they were wrong? If it's not means-tested, why do they ask about your income? Have I got a case to get compensation?
The size and overall cost of the benefits system for Government means that the costs of so called 'scroungers' and benefits fraud, are pretty insignificant (although certain sections of the media like to focus on them. Add the costs of Corporate tax fraud and evasion and that too dwarfs benefits fraud. The REAL scandal is the fact that anyone working in full time employment should need benefits top ups. The simple fact is that over several decades the family unit which once allowed a single breadwinner to provide for his family, whilst the partner, (i.e.the mother in the majority of cases although that is a separate issue) has been replaced by a society where to attain a decent standard of living (or even subsistence level) requires either one partner in a high paid job or holding two jobs working excessive hours) OR both partners working full and either paying prohibitive child care costs or deciding not to have children. Effectively successive Governments, and an UNREGULATED, global capitalist system in the developed World , has put profit and growth before the wellbeing of the majority of the population. The result is that business and industry has been allowed to pay sub-standard wages that are then supplemented at taxpayers expense via various benefits. It is a 'double whammy' for working people since they suffer low pay AND have to support a very expensive welfare system that is , in effect subsidising the very businesses that are short changing them. No one should deny risk takers (with their own money) , entrepreneurs and investors from reaping the rewards but the excesses of some have become detrimental to the society in which they live. The answer would be to simultaneously increase the mandatory minimum /living wage to a level that enables everyone in work to have sufficient income not to need benefits and reduce business tax burdens on businesses (particularly small to medium). This would a) incentivise those out of work to seek employment as it would now be worthwhile (eliminating the poverty trap where in many cases employment removes the benefit lifeline and people are worse off) and b) streamline the benefits system and reduce the numbers in the system, saving huge sums on administration. (as an aside -logically- means testing would also help but in reality it would cost far more to administer than it would save and also , bound to lead to injustice and errors in individual cases hence why it is seen as unacceptable by the majority). In the real World, given we live in a Global economy, the repercussions of doing this unilaterally as a nation means businesses relying on exports would become uncompetitive and in the short term many would fail so it will never happen. Some countries,though, for various reasons have a high standard of living, higher wages better education systems and managed to avoid the 'race to the bottom' (e.g. Scandinavia) that the UK seem hell bent on. The problem is , once you have progressed down that route, it is nigh on impossible to reverse it.
The American company that produces CO2, shuts down its plants and threatens Britain’s food supply as high gas prices make them no longer profitable. The government bungs them millions in taxpayer money so they can reopen and remain profitable. Now that’s what I call a benefit scrounger.
Completely agree. This culture of living it up in the backs of ordinary workers is completely ingrained for some families.
I’ve no idea what you read, or what link you clicked but it’s not a hundred years since I was training work coaches on the rules, and the website I linked is still up now. And whilst I’m a million miles from all that now; I’m fairly sure I’d know if they’d changed the law. There’s one unhelpful thing I do know about benefit law though. Your ignorance of the rules is neither a defence if you mis-claim or a help if you didn’t claim. To be entitled to compensation, you’d need documented evidence that DWP misdirected you.
Phased out in favour of UC*. But a single bloke working full time in NMW might get some help with rent (depending where they live), but unlikely to get any income top up. A couple with one full time on NMW, a lone parent on NMW or a family with one part time and one full time would likely also get an income top up. **caveat - I didn’t calculate any of that, it’s a hunch and may well be disproved. *UC is a much better system for dealing with people being in and out of work, having a fluctuating income etc. And yes I am aware it has its downsides too.
You could have written those exact same words about people living on NMW. You’re doing ok because you’re doing ok. Be off work with Covid for 2 weeks on SSP and your wage becomes less than your bills for that month. If that happened the same month your car needed an expensive repair, you’re screwed if you don’t have savings. You have no one (or you haven’t said you have) depending on you. If you had to go visit parents to help out every day after work you’d have extra fuel costs, if you had to pay for someone to look in on them on your behalf you’d have those costs. If you had kids and were alone you may very well have to quit your job as childcare alone is more than your wage. If your boiler packs up this winter you’ll have that cost. If you’re in a car crash (but still able to work so not factoring in more SSP) then you may have a large excess that takes most of your spare cash that month. Even things like Christmas if you have a large family, ‘one off’ obligations like weddings for a family member or really close friend where you basically have to attend (and need to pay hotel, travel, maybe a suit, a gift and the stag do which may involve another hotel plus spending). People who haven’t worked long enough to save for a deposit due to the above/their age may also face problems such as their rent going up/being kicked out as the landlord is selling up so they need new deposit and advance rent which you don’t experience as you own your house. Once something goes wrong it tends to snowball and people find themselves in difficultly very quickly. NMW is possibly fine for someone who lives in a particular area in the country with a specific set of circumstances that means they only have themselves to think about and never have multiple expensive commitments happen at once. That’s not how life works for a lot of people.
Let me be clear, I made a claim, online and the result was that I was not entitled to any benefit due to our household income.
To be fair to Jarvis, he only took the job as a stopgap to prevent Sheffield City Council's preferred candidate getting the job.
I understand what you said. I’ve no idea exactly what happened, but conts based JSA is still a thing. But I answered you question re compensation. If you have documentary evidence that you were misdirected, you have the basis for a claim. If you don’t; no matter who you feel is at fault, you don’t have any grounds for a claim.
No ‘new’ claims to WTC for a few years now, likewise HB and legacy DWP benefits. Everyone on all those who have had a change of circs will have been migrated over to UC. But that still leaves millions of people who will have to be moved to UC. Some of them will be better off, but some won’t, so there’s no way it’s gonna look good when it happens. The Grauniad will shine lights on all the people made worse off, the DM will concentrate on the waste and bureaucracy. There’d have been more winners if the government had kept the £20 uplift, but we’re led by donkeys.
Since I did it online I would think my answers to all the questions should be recorded. Who would I contact to get compensation? Incidentally before I knew that I should have tried to claim JSA, I had already been trying to get something from UC and was strung along for 6 weeks before they told me I'd get nowt, then my partner's sister put me onto JSA but as I say got nowt from that either. The whole system is simply not fit for purpose.