What a difference one hour makes

[thebigIAM]

I took the government bribe and offered a jobless person 16 hours' work a week. It had to be for 16 hours or I wouldn't qualify for the bribe.

Several weeks down the line she's quit her job. Why? She was advised to - she says - by the JobCentre.

Why? Because if she worked for 15 hours a week, she could claim income support and get housing and council tax benefit. But when she was working 16 hours a week, she couldn't.

Now, in fairness, she did ask me before quitting if she could change to 15 hours a week but I couldn't take it on board that she would be better off. This is because (a) she was getting commission as well as her 16 hours and was taking home between £155-£190 a week. (Yes, taking home, after tax and national insurance) and (b) because for some bizarre reason, she recently moved into a four bedroomed house (sounds expensive, doesn't it?) and had taken on two lodgers.

She's just turned 21, got no kids but has a partner who doesn't work.

I can't get my head round this at all. I really can't believe the JobCentre actually advised her to quit her job. But apparently they did, and now she's claiming again and all is hunky dory.

I did consider offering the 15 hours after she quit but changed my mind because the whole situation weirds me out.

 

[James.Dunford]

:| I would rather work for £100 a week than claim any benefits!! Also where are you i could do with another sales job

 

[Mister B]

Sums the whole system up really. If I were just starting out now I know for sure that it wouldn't be within these shores.

Mister B

 

[Christiane]

When I was recruiting, this person was quite upfront is saying she would work no more than 16 hours a week, otherwise she'll loose her benefits.

Some people just don't want to work, do they?

 

[Richie N]

We get this all the time, it's always the Job Centre or Social Security advising them they would be better off doing less hours and claiming benefits.

 

[tony84]

why does t weird you out? This is Britain!
Ive just written a massive rant but realised i went off topic.

 

[Beachcomber]

I don't get it.

As mentioned above, I'd rather work for £100 a week then sit on my arse for a £150 per week handout.

Not alot of pride about anymore.

 

[UKSBD]

In another 12 months, when she has a sprog she will probably want to
work 16 hours a week so she is eligible for family tax credit.

 

[Gratis Guidance]

Doesn't surprise me at all!

I have a friend in the job centre who regularly tells me about some of the mad things people have to do to get more money - maddest one so far is a couple, both getting careing allowance, to look after each other!

On the other hand is the small print for grants which means that almost no one qualifies for a grant, and if you do get one - You really lose!

The UK is so far down the slippery slope its going to take years to get it back in shape - if ever!

 

[bridges]

In another 12 months, when she has a sprog she will probably want to
work 16 hours a week so she is eligible for family tax credit.

why is it you get help for working MORE hours once you have kids? and less when you don't? seems a bit backward to me (even within our increasingly crazy system!) maybe i should give up on all this effort to have my own business, where are the benefits for that? how about an incentive scheme to get people doing something with their lives? if this girl had no kids, lodgers, and was able to work, she should get NOTHING in benefits, she had a job, and gave it up!

rant over

B x

 

[Matt1959]

:| I would rather work for £100 a week than claim any benefits!! Also where are you i could do with another sales job

all very well but unfortunately if you (not you!) have a family with assoc financial commitments you have to do the sums. You can't blame people for copping out of work if there is such a wide gulf in income between working and claiming. Its the fault of the government not necessarily the claimant....

For example, I have 2 step kids both of whom went to Uni. I would have had to be on about £40K to end up with the same net income as I do now (under £20K) as on £40K, tax credit would have reduced and means tested contributions for Uni would have gone up. Whats the point in me busting a gut to earn £40K when I can dawdle along at £20k???

approx figures above apply!

 

[James.Dunford]

all very well but unfortunately if you (not you!) have a family with assoc financial commitments you have to do the sums. You can't blame people for copping out of work if there is such a wide gulf in income between working and claiming. Its the fault of the government not necessarily the claimant....

For example, I have 2 step kids both of whom went to Uni. I would have had to be on about £40K to end up with the same net income as I do now (under £20K) as on £40K, tax credit would have reduced and means tested contributions for Uni would have gone up. Whats the point in me busting a gut to earn £40K when I can dawdle along at £20k???

approx figures above apply!

I am just saying for me personally. As the OP said she was earning more than £100, about £150 taking home which for 16 hours isn't bad. If she did well in the job then maybe long term the opportunity of more hours might come along, or if not she can at least put it on her CV? Yes in times of need you may be better off on benefits, but short term pain is worth long term gain surely?! By that i mean in a few years she could be earning an awful lot more money, which she could not just suddenly earn straight off benefits?

Each to there own i guess, i am 18, have no commitments and just have to pay for my car and a bit to my parents to rent, so what i think may be different from what others think..!

 

[Faith28]

Are you sure she can get benefits if she quit her job. I thought that if you quit you get no more allowance..is that not right? It doesn't make any sense at all.

I don't like the New Deal scheme and had a few suspicions that the 'bribe' will not work with the kind of people that are on these schemes ie. averse to good old fashioned work.

 

[one2escape]

Doesn't surprise me at all!

I have a friend in the job centre who regularly tells me about some of the mad things people have to do to get more money - maddest one so far is a couple, both getting careing allowance, to look after each other!

On the other hand is the small print for grants which means that almost no one qualifies for a grant, and if you do get one - You really lose!

The UK is so far down the slippery slope its going to take years to get it back in shape - if ever!

That is quite normal. I worked in the Jobcentre and money people were getting as unreal. Some people where getting £600 a week in benefits. The system isn't right. Until last year I was £50 a month better of working. That is before expenses like petrol to get to work which was over £100 a month! Basically if you have kids and cant get a job over minimum wage theres no point working for the money just your sanity.

 

[iArtist]

I took the government bribe and offered a jobless person 16 hours' work a week. It had to be for 16 hours or I wouldn't qualify for the bribe.

Several weeks down the line she's quit her job. Why? She was advised to - she says - by the JobCentre.

Why? Because if she worked for 15 hours a week, she could claim income support and get housing and council tax benefit. But when she was working 16 hours a week, she couldn't.

Now, in fairness, she did ask me before quitting if she could change to 15 hours a week but I couldn't take it on board that she would be better off. This is because (a) she was getting commission as well as her 16 hours and was taking home between £155-£190 a week. (Yes, taking home, after tax and national insurance) and (b) because for some bizarre reason, she recently moved into a four bedroomed house (sounds expensive, doesn't it?) and had taken on two lodgers.

She's just turned 21, got no kids but has a partner who doesn't work.

I can't get my head round this at all. I really can't believe the JobCentre actually advised her to quit her job. But apparently they did, and now she's claiming again and all is hunky dory.

I did consider offering the 15 hours after she quit but changed my mind because the whole situation weirds me out.

I'm confused

You hired this person because you reaped a government benefit and yet you can't understand why she is taking advantage of the same system you freely admit to taking advantage of?

Meanwhile

It will always be the case that those that 'don't' are rewarded and those that 'do', pay though the nose...........generally for those that don't!

I know someone who has never worked an honest day in her life, has two children (single mum) and very nice spacious two bedroom house (housing association) enormous garden, brand new car, designer label clothes, hair and nails done twice monthly and drinkies out very regularly, and foreign holidays. Oh and gym membership so she can tan, sauna and jacuzzi her days away.

She is on income support.

Go figure.

I have to work around the clock to afford a quarter of what she is given freely for doing nothing.

 

[Tej]

I have to work around the clock to afford a quarter of what she is given freely for doing nothing.

Self respect!.. that counts for a lot. At least you can look at yourself in the mirror every morning.

 

[Peter Bowen]

Self respect!.. that counts for a lot. At least you can look at yourself in the mirror every morning.

I hate what I see when I look at myself in the mirror in the morning. Eyes red from lack of sleep, wrinkles and stress because I've been running a business instead of getting benefits.

A large chunk of the world commerce happens in English because of those brave scoundrels who colonised and conquered their way across the globe. I fear the yoof of today wouldn't be up to it.

 

[Tej]

Glad you have joined the club

 

[iArtist]

Self respect!.. that counts for a lot. At least you can look at yourself in the mirror every morning.

Believe me when I say, so can she!

 

[sellickbhoy]

i don't believe that you jsut didn't change her hours to 15 hours a week - looks like she was doing a job for you and how much was the government bribe worth to you? how much was she doing for your business?

was it worth letting her go for teh amount of the bribe??

 

[thebigIAM]

Fair enough points raised.

I took the government bribe because she was a customer who asked outright if there were any jobs going. She seemed dead keen.

I wasn't sure about her and thought the bribe would help soften the costs of employing her in the first two weeks or so while we saw how it panned out. The bribe was £250 when first taking her on, £250 after four weeks, and another £500 after 26 weeks if she was still employed. We won't qualify for the last payment.

I knew from the off that the business couldn't afford a full-time job but I thought it could run to 16 hours, paying her £7 per hour basic. The commission part of the deal was devised to sweeten things from her point of view, which I was happy to pay if I got results.

I'm not actually slagging her for taking advantage of the system. I just don't understand why the system is not supporting her in work.

Why not just switch her hours to 15? I have seriously considered it, but only because I'm a soft touch. The problem is: even though she has achieved some results, especially at first, it was not consistent. In recent weeks, she's been missing days at work for some reason or another and I've either considered or actually ended up chipping in a certain amount so that her weekly income did not drop below a certain level.

Another reason is that other initial reservations about her have also borne fruit. The results she achieves, besides being mixed, comes with an awful lot of other time-consuming hassles and baggage. Putting it bluntly, the job she was doing for me was at a high cost. I was considering calling time on it before this happened.

I put this post up because I truly don't get why 16 hours a week should make a difference to housing benefit. If she were just doing the straight 16 hours at £7 an hour, surely it's a nonsense to expect her to cover everything out of it? Unless they decided either that she didn't need a four bedroomed house (which she clearly did not) or that her lodgers' contribution was too big for her to qualify for housing benefit. But surely both of these would still apply when she's on the dole?

 

[Techy]

Time for a rant!!!

As most of you will know the UK is a shambles, managed by over-paid public servant quarter-wits!

Did you see the documentary on BBC2 the other night about Romany Gypsies - who basically emigrate for 5yrs or so to beg, rob and aquire as much as possible (probably including benefits) so they can return to Romania to build a mansion? And I literally mean a mansion in terms of LA pop-stars - albeit in a Romanian 5hit hole!

The documentary didn't directly cover the UK but I'm sure whilst they were begging / robbing, they also took advantage of the state benefit system (as the documentary stated some 'made' gypsies returned from the UK)

On the benefits front, have you seen 'Benefit Busters' where the UK government pays private companies to get people off the dole?

I really do appreciate some people are unable to work and that there are people who really cannot get a job

However...

Public Cost Saving No. 1
Stop giving money to people who are not interested in working, after assessing they are not suitable / will not try it (which is impossible for government people due to thier ineptitude)

Public Cost Saving No. 2
Stop giving benefits to non-UK residents, who just 'popped in'

Public Cost Saving No. 3
Don't pay private companies to 'make' unemployed people employable, unless Job Centre Plus costs are relatively binned and the people are actually 'employable'

Public Service No. 1
Train UK citizens to do jobs and don't expect employers to do this for the Government'. Otherwise provide practical funding support and businesses can do this.

Public Service No. 2
Stop spending money on government business support services and cascade this cash to actual businesses

This country is a shables full of quarter-wits and it will only get worse if employees don't get trained, which is a sad state for my son and daughters!

**** the half-wits in power!

 

[northstorm]

I was unemployed last year for 7 months and this is how it worked out

if i worked over 16hrs a weeks
would have to pay £500 mortgage
pay £135 council tax
travel costs for the month £120
then there is bills around £300 a month tax, tv, insurence, food, clothing phone, internet, mobile, gas, elec.

which is £1055 per month
minimum wage per month before tax £893.88

so you can see working a minimum wage i would have beed out of pocket by around say £300 per month

now..
if i did not work
mortgage was paid
council tax paid
no travel costs
bills would be down slightly and would get income support of £245 per month

almost breaking even but with the time i had i did the odd work each week which brought in about £65 each week so i was so much better off.

thats why people so it, its not about looking yourself in the mirror so whats the point doing a good days work to be in debt by £300 each month.

its not always down to the person it depends on there situation.

I am lucky that i sold my house in a good paying job which i could almost cry each day as i hate it, and would love to start my own sandwich coffee bar shop or mobile sandwich run. I have some money left over from my salew of house but not enough to really set me up.

I would rather do a job i loved or enjoyed for minumum wage than what im doing just now which i hate.

oh and anyone got any ideas on sandwich delivery businesses please let me know.

 

[Lasting Designs]

Self respect!.. that counts for a lot. At least you can look at yourself in the mirror every morning.

Those days are long gone, we've stopped scrubbing the doorstep daily long ago.

These days there's no stigma for being out of work, bankrupt, an unmarried mother and all the other society appeasement stereotypical outcasts that were gradually eroded until the 1990's.

We as a society no longer saving for anything, no guarantors required to ensure you got the money, like Banks, Wheel Clampers, Estate Agents and a whole host of self-regularised industries, we have created a set of rules that makes anything easy, if you've moved with the times. Those that live by the values that once made this country great, are by an large, disappointed by what they witness day by day.

At JS+ (Joke Shop Extra) they have a "Better Off" calculator. Forgive me, but I'm one of the guys who hasn't gotten over being scared for life, because my mum darned my socks as school kid, when the others got new ones.

Better off than what? ah the amount of money that goes into my bank, if it pays not to work, who am I to say you shouldn't take the money, more fool us tax-payers for putting up with it. One thing that Gordon Brown did get right, was to royally screw the public purse, which hopefully will mean that brave policies and a change to how the recipients of public money are measured when it comes to need, are going to be required. All being well, the something for nothing merchants will have to contribute something of value to their community/society before they get their handouts. Of course there are genuine cases and these need protecting, but these are few in comparison to the "I won't get out of bed for less than £15 but I don't want to get my hands dirty and won't wear dreggy uniforms" shisters

 

[wilfredw]

I hate what I see when I look at myself in the mirror in the morning. Eyes red from lack of sleep, wrinkles and stress because I've been running a business instead of getting benefits.

That made my day Peter .

 

[shubh]

I think it was a big mistake of your employee. Another thing, I couldn’t understand is that why you both didn’t discuss the problem before she left the job. Surely, there was a communication gap.

 

[Emcar Vending]

The benefits system is crazy in more ways than one.

My wife & business partner has been off sick for 16 weeks and recently been given the all clear to return to work. While she was off she claimed the basic sickness benefit.

When she sent in her last sick note, she got a call saying she could be eligible for £40 per week for a year, return to work payment even though she is self employed.

Some paperwork to do to get it but hey ho, something back after all the years of just paying.

The system is crazy but while it's there....

 

[movietub]

All government organistaions seem to waste vast sums of money. common sense has been erased and replaced with blanket systems and policies which just don't work.

Personally I think benefit applications should be processed by magistrates. If you can't present tangible evidince that you are trying your best to work then you don't get a bean!

The magistrates would also have the power to overule benefit policy when it becomes counter-productive. Such as in this case.

Applying for benefit should be just as challenging and diffiuclt as finding work - or whats the point?

 

[sellickbhoy]

This is what i don't understand about the benefits system

I own a house. if i lost my job (for whatever reason) and couldn't pay the mortgage - I would get no help paying it. (ok, i should have insurance - my bad)

Eventually, I wold get the house repossessed - stress/trauma

then, if i was still unemployed, i would be entitled to housing benefit to RENT a house.

Now, i am also a landlord - and my properties have mortgages. So the housing benefit is going to pay the landlords mortgage. basically, if i rent a house to an unemployed person i can get the government to buy my house for me. Yet, if i own a house they won't help me stay in it.

They won't even give me a contribution towards the mortgage if i transferred to an interest only mortgage.

surely housing benefit should be paid to keep a roof over your head.

at the end of the day, if i was a work shy con artist, i could simply live in a house rent free til i died. Why would i care if i ever owned it or not.

i just don't understand why all benefits aren't simply means tested

if you are unemployed and are entitled to housing benefit (say £500 a month) unemployment benefit (no idea how much that is per week) council tax relief - (£120 a month) - say about £900 a month per person when you add up all the other wee things you can claim

then why not say - if you work 16 hours at minimum wage, we'll reduce that benefit payment by 75% of your weeky pay (so you are still up and they are still up)

if you work 25 hours a week, we'll take 85% of your pay off in benefits - still up

32 hours a week -95% of your salary off in benefits

36 hours a week and you are off your benefits

 

[iArtist]

I shall be penning an article for publication about this situation shortly as I am tired of seeing those who have never worked in their lvies housed in larger properties than those who work their nuts off all their lives and the rest of the perks that go with it.

I've known and seen people first hand screwing the system and they still moan when their 4 bed detached victorian house isn't decorated to their taste! Grrrrrrrrrrr

It's about time tax payers demanded 'equality'

 

[robsawinner]

I shall be penning an article for publication about this situation shortly as I am tired of seeing those who have never worked in their lvies housed in larger properties than those who work their nuts off all their lives and the rest of the perks that go with it.

I've known and seen people first hand screwing the system and they still moan when their 4 bed detached victorian house isn't decorated to their taste! Grrrrrrrrrrr

It's about time tax payers demanded 'equality'

Maybe you should include a petition with your article to get the ball rolling.

 

[streetslocal]

My simple solution:
If you claim job seekers allowance then you should be made to do 5-10 hours per work in a volunteer role or on skills training.
This would stop the people claiming and working.

I read an article in the Daily Mail the other day and there was an emergency report into unemployment published and it stated that the goverment are planning to scrap the need to sign on and that they could do it by telephone and have a face to face review every 3 months.
This would breed a new generation of cash in hand employee's.

The job centre needs to go back to basics and actually help people find work and not say use that machine and the telphones on the wall........

 

[Cornish Steve]

Years ago, I was living in the Midlands and commuting daily to a job in central London. We were rather poor at the time and lived in a house on a council estate that the previous owner had bought as part of Maggie Thatcher's policy of encouraging private ownership. Every day, I left the house at 6:45am, cycled a few miles to the railway station, caught the train to London (92 miles), walked 30 minutes the other end to the office - and did the same in reverse every night. Our two children at the time were asleep when I left the house and asleep when I arrived home.

After paying taxes and also taking out the cost of my monthly rail pass, I was bringing in about £100 a week less than the guy living next door. He had no job, as far as we know had never had a job, and simply claimed unemployment money every week. After 18 months of commuting every day, I was physically exhausted. We could afford no car. Someone gave us a TV, but we used it as a bookshelf because we couldn't afford to buy the license. Every Saturday, we walked the 2+ miles each way to buy food - often in the pouring rain.

We just couldn't continue like that, and friends advised me to chuck in the job and become unemployed. After all, it would have represented a significant pay increase and the daily pressure of travel would go away. Honestly, we never thought about it for an instant. I'm very much against the concept of entitlements anyway, and it would have been hypocritical to pursue that option. In the end, after considering every option available to us (I had a PhD in physics but, at the time, it counted for nothing in Britain), I transferred to an office in the US and we've lived here ever since.

I'm not suggesting that everyone pursue the same path. What I'm trying to point out, though, is that once we go down the entitlement and welfare path, there's no going back. A lot of people will play the system to maximise their income - whether they actually work or not. Frankly, it's pathetic. If someone doesn't work, they should not get paid - simple.

PS - A related problem is that we were ostracised by all the families in the estate because I went to work in a suit. I was ostracised by everyone on the train because they knew I lived on a council estate. After a while, such snobbery and inverse snobbery proved difficult to take - especially for my poor wife. Such social divisions do seem to play a role in preventing people from getting good jobs.

 

[iArtist]

Years ago, I was living in the Midlands and commuting daily to a job in central London. We were rather poor at the time and lived in a house on a council estate that the previous owner had bought as part of Maggie Thatcher's policy of encouraging private ownership. Every day, I left the house at 6:45am, cycled a few miles to the railway station, caught the train to London (92 miles), walked 30 minutes the other end to the office - and did the same in reverse every night. Our two children at the time were asleep when I left the house and asleep when I arrived home.

After paying taxes and also taking out the cost of my monthly rail pass, I was bringing in about £100 a week less than the guy living next door. He had no job, as far as we know had never had a job, and simply claimed unemployment money every week. After 18 months of commuting every day, I was physically exhausted. We could afford no car. Someone gave us a TV, but we used it as a bookshelf because we couldn't afford to buy the license. Every Saturday, we walked the 2+ miles each way to buy food - often in the pouring rain.

We just couldn't continue like that, and friends advised me to chuck in the job and become unemployed. After all, it would have represented a significant pay increase and the daily pressure of travel would go away. Honestly, we never thought about it for an instant. I'm very much against the concept of entitlements anyway, and it would have been hypocritical to pursue that option. In the end, after considering every option available to us (I had a PhD in physics but, at the time, it counted for nothing in Britain), I transferred to an office in the US and we've lived here ever since.

I'm not suggesting that everyone pursue the same path. What I'm trying to point out, though, is that once we go down the entitlement and welfare path, there's no going back. A lot of people will play the system to maximise their income - whether they actually work or not. Frankly, it's pathetic. If someone doesn't work, they should not get paid - simple.

PS - A related problem is that we were ostracised by all the families in the estate because I went to work in a suit. I was ostracised by everyone on the train because they knew I lived on a council estate. After a while, such snobbery and inverse snobbery proved difficult to take - especially for my poor wife. Such social divisions do seem to play a role in preventing people from getting good jobs.

Understandable and I can relate.

 

[LindsayManning]

Hi everyone, firstly to say I totally agree with this thread and it warms my heart to see that there are others out there who feel the same way.

People who contribute to society should get rewarded.
That seems like an obvious statement to make, even a 5 yr old could come up with that rule.

I also dont blame the claimers for being smart enough to play the system, it is the system that is at fault. I go out with a secondary school teacher and it is soul destroying to see that it is pretty much a career choice now for some people to get preggers and play the system. The rewards now compared to 10 years ago seems to be on the increase.
Aaanyways before I go on and on with a rant heheh, I guess it should be said that it does take ingenuity to play the system and reap the rewards of a life on the social services, its a shame that the system cant encourage that ingenuity to be applied to other areas of benefiting society.

 

[voiceswf]

Hi,

PS - A related problem is that we were ostracised by all the families in the estate because I went to work in a suit. I was ostracised by everyone on the train because they knew I lived on a council estate. After a while, such snobbery and inverse snobbery proved difficult to take - especially for my poor wife. Such social divisions do seem to play a role in preventing people from getting good jobs. - Cornish Steve

You've hit the nail on the head here - damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

Kind Regards,

Voiceswf

 

[Lasting Designs]

I'd like to think I'm empathetic enough to say if your out of work there should be provision available to get by on.

That isn't to say I agree with the ability to make a living from the state. The minimum wage @37.5 hour should be tax free, and should be worth more than anything the state will pay. There also should be a legally binding contract that states that there are a number of working credits, through approved community driven schemes that add something positive to the local area for the good of everybody. Refusal to do so would see a reduction in whats paid out.

It actually could be called National Service, but with a difference. I have witnessed people doing Community Service look at defending the work they've done on "their time off" They were fixing fences along a dis-used railway line and they come across some rubish that had been fly-tipped. They were able to ID the source and filled their wheel barrow and "returned it" The point was that as they did the work they began to value why they were doing this work, they had some pride in what they were doing. It's this what drives most people who enjoy their work, if being pushed into earning their benefits restores that ethic then we are long way towards making the UK a better place to live.

 

[thebigIAM]

An update: After sleeping on this (badly) the OH and I went back to her today and discussed this situation again. The upshot is that we have agreed to her request to work fewer hours.

One question to ask ourselves was whether her deteriorating performance was simply down to the stress of the situation?

I was in the curious position of being asked by the employee if she could work a similar number of hours, for £6 per hour basic instead of £7, with absolutely no commission at all.

 

[movietub]

There is something I have never understood about the benefits system - maybe someone here knows the answer!?

I accpet that if you cannot find a job you have to live, so you get state support. But why are people just given money? Why don't they insist on them doing something to improve their local area?

Other than those with a dissability why would our state give away free money?

It would surely be completely fair to expect anyone signing on to do 20 hours community service type work a week whilst looking for a better job?

There must be a reason - its not as if there isn't work to be done!

 

[Cornish Steve]

I accpet that if you cannot find a job you have to live, so you get state support. But why are people just given money? Why don't they insist on them doing something to improve their local area?

In general, it should be an insurance policy. We buy insurance to protect us against unforeseen circumstances - and losing a job is such a circumstance. Just like car insurance works, you pay a higher rate if you have a poor track record or engage in unsafe behaviour. For companies that offer medical insurance, you pay more if you smoke, etc. It should be no different for unemployment insurance. If you don't bother to learn new skills, for example, you pay a higher price.

Frankly, I just don't see why the government should even be involved - except, for example, to ensure the disabled and others are not discriminated against.