What a difference one hour makes

[thebigIAM]

Incidentally, I thought I would air one of my reservations about this set-up.

If you take someone off the dole and they don't declare their job and still claim, there is a presumption that the employer has somehow encouraged them.

I know this because about five years or so we were subjected to something rather akin to a raid. It was singularly unpleasant. The investigating officers' attitude altered abruptly once they had inspected our records, which were pristine. It was very much a sledgehammer to crack a nut type of affair. We employed 16. A single employee had sparked this investigation.

My mother in law worked with us at that time. She was recently widowed and prone to panic attacks. The inspectors who came round were initially extremely hostile and she got upset.

I hate this presumption that seems to exist against employers. It's automatic, pervasive and is effectively the death of a thousand paper cuts.

I shall be rigorous in sending our employee home as soon as her contracted hours are over.

 

[maxine]

Really daft situation isn't it? You could have actually reduced her hours by 1 minute and that would have given her an increase of about £800 a month better off (housing ben, council tax, income support etc)

Like Leah I know of a fair few people for whom this is now a quite comfortable lifestyle. They have their sky+, xboxes, cars, large houses and gardens, etc

What really pees me off are all the tradespeople who are claiming the full monty and then do a load of cash in hand work effectively taking home a damn sight more than a lot of people. The effect of this is crushing on a small town as there is always someone would will do our kind of work cheaper. And they all flipping advertise on google! grrr.

A client that I used to do work for would regularly get large commission payments between £40k - £75k per quarter and then his wife had the cheek to claim benefits fraudulently stating that they were not living together and she only did this because they were so rubbish at managing the company cashflow!

I hate the way the handout system is too generous. I don't agree it should be stopped completely as that would lead to more crime etc but I do not agree that it should be so flaming comfortable for some how know how to play the system long term.

Back to the point you raised though about the 16 hours thing. We have made this work a bit better for everyone by having a 15 hours contract but on flexi time so that hours under/over get carried forward to the following week and 15 hours always gets put through payroll

 

[UKSBD]

And they all flipping advertise on google! grrr.

I recently had an official letter from the DSS requesting information about
someone who had registered a listing in my directory.
Apparently they were claiming, but also advertising their services in a
number of online directories.

 

[CoolioXXX]

The good thing about business is that you do not have to tell the Goverment, so you get both the money that you make from your business and also the benefits

 

[Dawg]

The good thing about business is that you do not have to tell the Goverment, so you get both the money that you make from your business and also the benefits

Hmmm. Do you like spiders? Because your cell mate might have one tattooed on his neck...

 

[CoolioXXX]

Hmmm. Do you like spiders? Because your cell mate might have one tattooed on his neck...

Ye Right! How they gonna catch me, and even if they do I will say I didn't know!

 

[Christiane]

Ye Right! How they gonna catch me, and even if they do I will say I didn't know!

Idiot! Ever read the papers? Must be Friday night

 

[CoolioXXX]

Idiot! Ever read the papers? Must be Friday night

Did you become a millionaire by reading the papers?

 

[Dawg]

Somewhere a window goes unlicked.

 

[Christiane]

Did you become a millionaire by reading the papers?

If you read the papers, you'd know people get caught eventually. What comes around, goes around. Good luck with it, I say!

You're definitely on the wrong forum though, has someone told you?

 

[movietub]

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.

Ahh! the clues in the name, national insurance

Although as insurance goes it's a wierd setup! Basically if you have never worked, therfore you have never paid into the policy, you can still claim.

Yet if you work your nadgers off for 30 years, make a single mistake and your house is on the line, you cannot claim enough to keep it. But once you have lost everything and can no longer pay half the insurance premium you used to they will rent a house for you. :|

I guess you have answered my question, so here's the next. Why on earth is it national insurance? Why not keep NI for the NHS and stipulate that anyone who needs to claim state benefit works for the state in return?

I still don't see any good reason for EVER giving money to a person that is capable of working for it.

 

[movietub]

The good thing about business is that you do not have to tell the Goverment, so you get both the money that you make from your business and also the benefits

For once I can make an abusive comment without fear of retribution from the mods - because they pay tax too.

You sir, are a w*nker

(feel free to delete my foul language whilst removing the self confessed fraudster from our midst)

 

[CoolioXXX]

For once I can make an abusive comment without fear of retribution from the mods - because they pay tax too.

You sir, are a w*nker

(feel free to delete my foul language whilst removing the self confessed fraudster from our midst)

I didn't say I do it. I said it is good to have the option

 

[Cornish Steve]

Why would anyone hire someone, for 15 hours or even for 15 minutes, who is so patently dishonest as to be "playing" the system? I know I wouldn't. For me, trust is a fundamental part of the employer/employee relationship.

 

[sellickbhoy]

Why would anyone hire someone, for 15 hours or even for 15 minutes, who is so patently dishonest as to be "playing" the system? I know I wouldn't. For me, trust is a fundamental part of the employer/employee relationship.

they are not being dishonest though - they are just doing what makes most financial sense to them

don't accountants go out of their way to reduce how much tax your company pays? that's to maximise your profits - so an employee will find a job that pays them best - if that means part time work and a wodge of benefits the government is overly keen to hand out - then why not?

if your only job options are at the lower end of the scale, then surely the benefits options available mean, more free time, more money - more attractive lifestyle option

 

[Cornish Steve]

It may not be illegal, but it is downright dishonest. For sure, it would grate my conscience, and I sure as heck would never hire anyone with such an attitude.

If they're willing to rip off the government so blatantly (which is really you and me, because that's where the government gets it money), it wouldn't take much for them to rip off our companies, would it?

 

[sellickbhoy]

It may not be illegal, but it is downright dishonest. For sure, it would grate my conscience, and I sure as heck would never hire anyone with such an attitude.

If they're willing to rip off the government so blatantly (which is really you and me, because that's where the government gets it money), it wouldn't take much for them to rip off our companies, would it?

how is it dishonest? they are been encouraged by the government to claim these benefits

the job centre are encouraging people not to work and claim benefits!

they aren't asking for payments in cash, or for employers to lie about how much they are working/earning

it may seem amoral or unfair - but it's not.

what i don't get though, is why are benefits based on the hours worked and not pay earned? say you were an IT consultant, lawyer, accountant, you could earn over £150 an hour, 16 hours a week, full government benefits - easy money!!!!!

 

[movietub]

I didn't say I do it. I said it is good to have the option

No it is not. There is no option you halfwit. It makes no difference if your income comes from a job or your own business, you still pay the same income tax, and can claim the same level of benefit.

You are probably not a kiddy fiddler, yet its good you have the option to be one - good point, well made

 

[movietub]

how is it dishonest? they are been encouraged by the government to claim these benefits

the job centre are encouraging people not to work and claim benefits!

they aren't asking for payments in cash, or for employers to lie about how much they are working/earning

it may seem amoral or unfair - but it's not.

what i don't get though, is why are benefits based on the hours worked and not pay earned? say you were an IT consultant, lawyer, accountant, you could earn over £150 an hour, 16 hours a week, full government benefits - easy money!!!!!

On a personal level it is dishonest. Of course it is! Just becasue the government encourages it does not make it honest.

They proved they could work so they should continue to do so! The honest approach would have been to say to the JC staff, 'I don't care about the benefit, I am a uk citisen and want to pay my way'. It's not as if the jc forced her to quit! They told her there was an easier and less honest option and she took it.

Either way you're well shot.

 

[CoolioXXX]

No it is not. There is no option you halfwit. It makes no difference if your income comes from a job or your own business, you still pay the same income tax, and can claim the same level of benefit.

You are probably not a kiddy fiddler, yet its good you have the option to be one - good point, well made

Are you saying that when you do your Tax Return you put the actual figure of what you earn as self-employed? If so, you are the halfwit not me! Why throw away the money you worked so hard for?

 

[Matt1959]

On a personal level it is dishonest. Of course it is! Just becasue the government encourages it does not make it honest.

They proved they could work so they should continue to do so! The honest approach would have been to say to the JC staff, 'I don't care about the benefit, I am a uk citisen and want to pay my way'. It's not as if the jc forced her to quit! They told her there was an easier and less honest option and she took it.

Either way you're well shot.

The job centres mantras are actualy not set in stone. I was off work sick for 3.5 months and they told me I had to attend an interview to prove I was not capable of working and I told them in no uncertain terms to sod off and they rolled over and i didnt have to attend!!

 

[movietub]

Are you saying that when you do your Tax Return you put the actual figure of what you earn as self-employed? If so, you are the halfwit not me! Why throw away the money you worked so hard for?

I'm not throwing it away, it's the rate we all pay to live here. If you don't want to pay UK tax then move away, go live in romania. If you do want to live here pay tax.

If you want to live here and not pay tax then you are being decietful.

 

[Chunkford]

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.

I have thought about this many of times. It seems so backwards.

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.

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.

That sounds like a plan. The gov will never consider such a sane plan tho. If they did they would have to spend millions on a team of consultants etc, and even then when near the end, will have to increase the cost because they under estimated the costs wasting even more tax payers money!

 

[Techy]

CoolioXXX

I bet your addicted to the new Walls ice cream flavour -> Glass!

 

[Cornish Steve]

Are you saying that when you do your Tax Return you put the actual figure of what you earn as self-employed? If so, you are the halfwit not me! Why throw away the money you worked so hard for?

If ever there is any doubt about how much I should pay in taxes, I choose to overpay rather than underpay - and I'm sure I'm not alone in doing that. While I may disagree strongly with the amount of tax I'm forced to pay, there's no way I'm going to be dishonest about it - or even give the appearance of dishonesty. And if that costs me some, so be it.

 

[iArtist]

Re the great debate about taking advantage of benefits

I see both points of view re Cornish Steve and Sellick boy and both are right in many regards.

Meanwhile re Steves point of view saying it's dishonest to choose to work 15hrs rather than 17 due to the difference in 'benefits' is incorrect as the system is legal, it allows a choice and thus their is no dishonesty.

It's no more dishonest that claiming 'expenses' when filling out your tax return.

It's no more dishonest than selling your house for just under the threshold for paying more tax.

It's no more dishonest than avoiding inheritance tax by creating trusts up the limit and so on.

There are 'legal' ways around most systems designed to make us pay more tax and receive less benefits and I don't think anyone should be vilified for doing so especially when at some point we are all most definitely living in glass houses.

Meanwhile

I know someone who has never worked an honest day in his life and he has a great standard of living. He calls 'us' (the working, law abiding, tax paying, car insuring folk) the idiots as he gets along just fine not doing anything at all.

I know many like him and these people give the genuinely unemployed a very bad name. But they are out there in vast numbers and they should earn every penny of their benefits.

The total should be totted up and work should be found that equals that amount in a reasonable amount per hour so no slave labour is involved and there is no job theft.

It's not rocket science and the truth re how much all the money adds up should be revealed. It's something like this

not exact figs but a rough guess based on 4 bed house down South, 4 kids etc)

Rent £1200 pcm
Ctax £175 pcm
Water rates £40 pcm
Frees chool dinners £140 pcm
Money in hand £800 pcm at least for two adults with 4 kids
Child benefit £70 pcm

X this lot by 12 months divide by 2 for two adults and you have two very decent after tax salaries!

 

[movietub]

Re the great debate about taking advantage of benefits

I see both points of view re Cornish Steve and Sellick boy and both are right in many regards.

Meanwhile re Steves point of view saying it's dishonest to choose to work 15hrs rather than 17 due to the difference in 'benefits' is incorrect as the system is legal, it allows a choice and thus their is no dishonesty.

It's no more dishonest that claiming 'expenses' when filling out your tax return.

It's no more dishonest than selling your house for just under the threshold for paying more tax.

It's no more dishonest than avoiding inheritance tax by creating trusts up the limit and so on.

There are 'legal' ways around most systems designed to make us pay more tax and receive less benefits and I don't think anyone should be vilified for doing so especially when at some point we are all most definitely living in glass houses.

I disagree. It is not the same at all! If I sell a house at a tax friendly price I have paid the exact amount of tax based on the exact income I made. As for expenses, we are supposed to claim for these things! Fair enough some people may stretch the truth but by and large most of us put down the figure we can prove and sleep easy.

Choosing not to work 'because you can' is dishonest. It makes no difference if it's legal or you are encouraged by the government. She is not 'earning an honest living'. If it makes it easier swap the word 'dishonest' for 'immoral'. Which I admit fits better.

The tax system id designed to collect from all of us according to our means. She has the means to work, she had a job! She has the means to pay tax, yet instead she collects benefits.

Lazy!

 

[tony84]

Ive come up with a really good idea for all the lay abouts....

Electricity bills are a fair bit expensive, burning gas/coal/oil etc is not very environmentally friendly. In areas of high unemployment get a building - maybe a warhouse. Hook up a load of exercise bikes to the national grid (im sre its more complicated than that but i also think it can be done).

They should spend x number of hours their a week, i dont expect them to cycle for an hour non stop but maybe 15 minutes on, 15 minutes off for a good 4-6 hours a day.

Gets Britain fit, which in turn helps the NHS, will get the government some money from selling electric or atleast it ca be used to power some of their street lights etc. Also gives these people an incentive to find an actual job if they dont like it.

 

[movietub]

Ive come up with a really good idea for all the lay abouts....

Electricity bills are a fair bit expensive, burning gas/coal/oil etc is not very environmentally friendly. In areas of high unemployment get a building - maybe a warhouse. Throw all the unemployed inside and burn them instead!

It's a bit harsh but I see your point

 

[thebigIAM]

I'm not well shot yet Steve, because she's back with me working her reduced hours.

It will take me some time to measure how this pans out, but to be blunt, I can't see this being sustainable. I reckon she will care less about doing a good job and just become a time-server.

If her boyfriend finds work, then the benefit system will work better for her if they work 30 hours a week between them, so does that then mean she would want to up her hours again? Then the fella might lose his job and it would be back to square one. Up, down, up, down like a tart's knickers. How can I, as an employer, maintain any credibility like that?

Do I take a pragmatic approach and think, well, she researched a solution to her problem. Can't criticise her for that... Or do I think, why the hell did she have to choose to live in an expensive house? (She moved house during her employment with me).

The fact is, even if she had chosen a cheaper house, the wages I paid still wouldn't have been enough to maintain her, boyfriend, rent, council tax, gas and electric.

Apparently the boyfriend has been moaning on at her (I can just visualise this) that he can't get his dole money 'cos of her working more than 16 hours a week. He's indignant over it.

Meanwhile, the government wasted its £500 bribing me to take someone off the dole, only to advise her to go back on it again.

She was paying tax and national insurance before. Now she reckons she and boyfriend will get £200 dole money a month, her rent paid bar £80 of it monthly and 100% of her £120 council tax paid. AND she reckons if she earns £84 a week with me, she will be allowed to keep it all.

Can that really be true?

 

[tony84]

movietub, thats the solution to overcrowdedness not the environment - but its a solution non the less.

Personally though i think its a cracking idea, it will also get builders and sparks some work setting up the buildings. Me and GB need a meeting.

You know all the adverts about benefit cheats being watched....does anyone know of any being caught? Only the really stupid ones get caught, the clever ones who are robbing/claiming more money are getting away with it. They threaten to stop money if they do catch you - FANTASTIC! It really is a good idea. The sad truth is, if that happens (as the credit crunch has proved) Raids/Robbery and crime in general goes up.

In my local South Manchester reporter last week - There was a raid on a mans house for his car, a raid on a pub where a 14 year old had a gun held to his head, a raid on a restaurant where they threatened older people. Plus whatever i missed when i closed the paper because it was quite depressing.
The punishment needs to fit the crime - but then we role on to something else and this topic goes way off track.

 

[maxine]

Meanwhile, the government wasted its £500 bribing me to take someone off the dole, only to advise her to go back on it again.

She was paying tax and national insurance before. Now she reckons she and boyfriend will get £200 dole money a month, her rent paid bar £80 of it monthly and 100% of her £120 council tax paid. AND she reckons if she earns £84 a week with me, she will be allowed to keep it all.

Can that really be true?

Yeah, that sounds about right. There is a website www.entitledto.com which helps people to calculate what they are entitled to and the opening para on the website is that there is apparently £10 billion that people are missing out on with unclaimed benefits and credits!

£10 billion!!

Meanwhile there are fraudsters, cheats and lazy gits who take more than their fair share.

A while ago there was a case reported in our local paper of a couple fraudulently claiming over £50,000. Question here should surely be how the hell have they managed to claim so much without being caught and why does it take so long to catch them. But never mind, just a couple of weekends picking up litter makes up for £50k doesn't it? And if you really can't be bothered then just say you have a bad back.

It is really daft that the £500 was wasted in this way but sadly it is not the only example of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing

 

[iArtist]

I disagree. It is not the same at all! If I sell a house at a tax friendly price I have paid the exact amount of tax based on the exact income I made. As for expenses, we are supposed to claim for these things! Fair enough some people may stretch the truth but by and large most of us put down the figure we can prove and sleep easy.

Choosing not to work 'because you can' is dishonest. It makes no difference if it's legal or you are encouraged by the government. She is not 'earning an honest living'. If it makes it easier swap the word 'dishonest' for 'immoral'. Which I admit fits better.

The tax system id designed to collect from all of us according to our means. She has the means to work, she had a job! She has the means to pay tax, yet instead she collects benefits.

Lazy!

we're arguing semantics here

Please refer to dictionary definition re word 'dishonest'

I am not arguing about your thinking, we're all agreed on that. It's just the use of the word 'dishonest'. It's not dishonest if it's legal and neither is it immoral if your family eat better as a result.

 

[iArtist]

I'm not well shot yet Steve, because she's back with me working her reduced hours.

It will take me some time to measure how this pans out, but to be blunt, I can't see this being sustainable. I reckon she will care less about doing a good job and just become a time-server.

If her boyfriend finds work, then the benefit system will work better for her if they work 30 hours a week between them, so does that then mean she would want to up her hours again? Then the fella might lose his job and it would be back to square one. Up, down, up, down like a tart's knickers. How can I, as an employer, maintain any credibility like that?

Do I take a pragmatic approach and think, well, she researched a solution to her problem. Can't criticise her for that... Or do I think, why the hell did she have to choose to live in an expensive house? (She moved house during her employment with me).

The fact is, even if she had chosen a cheaper house, the wages I paid still wouldn't have been enough to maintain her, boyfriend, rent, council tax, gas and electric.

Apparently the boyfriend has been moaning on at her (I can just visualise this) that he can't get his dole money 'cos of her working more than 16 hours a week. He's indignant over it.

Meanwhile, the government wasted its £500 bribing me to take someone off the dole, only to advise her to go back on it again.

She was paying tax and national insurance before. Now she reckons she and boyfriend will get £200 dole money a month, her rent paid bar £80 of it monthly and 100% of her £120 council tax paid. AND she reckons if she earns £84 a week with me, she will be allowed to keep it all.

Can that really be true?

her mistake here has been discussing all this with you

The problem is the system not so much the people who operate legally within it.

Then there is the bigger problem of those who rob us all blind.

Bankers and politicians included.

 

[maxine]

Agree with Leah - It is not dishonest or immoral but it is unfair on employers who end up feeling obliged to accommodate a claiming employees every change of circumstances and work their business around the benefit culture.

Friend of mine is just going through an ugly split with her husband of 20 years and also just been made redundant. She has worked all her life and takes comfort that this is the easiest and most reassuring way to ensure she can support her children (as he is not paying a penny to them or their household bills). In this case it seems that benefits make it easier for a husband to go swanning off and living a single life free of financial committments. I would like to see there being more emphasis put on making people like him cough up so that the state doesn't have to! Does she think it is dishonest or immoral? No. It is the most sensible choice for her until she is back on her feet. And this is a woman who has always earned over £60k pa she is now thinking well, why should I miss out on time with my kids and work so hard when actually I can afford to live quite OK on benefits.

 

[chip_y2kuk]

This is something that has really bin getting on my cheese lately.

I'm a qulified secondary ICT teacher, Looking for teaching work.
i work part time in a pub earning minimum wage (about £110 a week)
I'm looking for work as a technician as well getting e-mails every day and clicking apply to any that i think i could do and aren't a million miles away.

i've tried to start my own computer repair company from home, and as an offshoot have set up mail/web hosting as well.

now i live with parents and pay them a small amount of keep.

however, if i sat on me behind i'd get a house rent free money in me pocket (more than i earn a week) and other perks

and if i did find a job i'd get another benefit for having gained employement but i would have to pay part/all of the rent.

so instead of working and paying a small amount of tax and NI to help other people do nothing.

i'd be better off sitting on me behind watching TV all day doing nothing, however i would get bored of sitting on me behind all day long and because of that i'm not entitled to anything because i'm trying.

that's my little rant over

it really peeve's me off though

 

[travelspirit]

I agree with those at the start of the thread. I would rather earn pittence then claim dole.

I had the misfortune of having no choice but to claim JobSeekers Allowance earlier this year and what really got on my nerves was every single time I was asked a question they would say "your answer will be put to a decision maker". - Some one sat in an office hundreds of miles away!

I was only claming for about six weeks before I realised there was more to life then working for someone else - hence why I set out on my own with a small loan from my folks.

Before he fell ill, my father always used to say that companies have an obligation to keep people off the dole - presumably by that he meant they should pay more! It is a fact of business though that it is not always possible. I mean I know people who even struggle to pay staff the minimum wage.

 

[lupton]

As a growing business we are faced with this problem every day, trying to get the right member of staff on board.

I have just signed up for work trials, has anyone else tried it?

What results have you had?

I must admit it sounds the perfect solution a team member free for 15 hours then you get paid so much a week and you can train them to be the perfect team member.

Thoughts

Lupton

 

[Connexions]

I agree with those at the start of the thread. I would rather earn pittence then claim dole.

/agreed.

In fact i was once made redundant about 15 years ago, stayed on the dole for 2 weeks before i finally got another job. It was a rubbish job and not much more than the dole, but i took it for sanity reasons but also didnt want to look like a scrounger, which is the way i see it. Ok theres some people who cant work but goddam theres work there if people looked. Bit of imagination needed sometimes, id rather knock on doors and wash cars.

 

[retrocircles]

If she quit her job voluntarily she wouldn't be eligible for ANY form of benefit. I don't think she would have been TOLD to quit her job by the Jobcentre. If anything she probably had a lightbulb moment on how to get the most from our wonderful system. You may find she's told the Jobcentre you fired her in order for her to claim benefits. If they contact you, be sure they have the story correctly.