to think JSA is insultingly low amount

[brt100]

I mean 72 pounds a week is a joke, and you will loose 20% of that if you had an average paying job for half of the tax year.

Around here the daily rate wouldn't even cover the daily bus ticket to get to interviews.

'Certainly i know people who were happy to stay on benefits.'

You truly have no idea whether someone is happy to stay on benefits at all. Many of these people who are supposedly happy just no longer have any hope of anything else.

Bubble- only underlying problem is the area of business. He's now been in work in a decent job (the same one for over a year-yay). There were different reasons. Companies amalgamating so shedding jobs, one company went under, one took him on then decided they didn't have the work for him another couldn't afford to keep his position. Last in first out is very common. I have no idea why they advertised and interviewed for jobs but they did. I suspect one of them was to pick his brains for any knowledge they could glean and then discarded him when they had got it.

All I can say is just be thankful it hasn't happened to you

Contribution based is less because you are expected to have saved while working. Even if you had a zero hours contract minimum wage job.

' but there are more than enough jobs out there for people who want to work, to find work'

How on earth can you be so incorrect and out of touch? There are NOT enough jobs for everyone who 'wants to work', or everyone who is unemployed. Where do you get this rubbish from?

Contributions based is the same amount but you dont get benefits like free prescriptions, dental etc.

Its an absurd idea that someone who has worked for the past two years, gets the same money but less benefits as someone that hasn't worked.

'Ex DHSS.DSS.DEof EM JC etc -- get a fucking job. The state is not there to support work shy lazy fuckers. HTH'

I think you'll find it IS there to support people who for whatever reason, cannot work at the moment. Whether thats because they are ill or merely because no one will employ them.

Whos betting your a privileged middle class woman whos never had to struggle for anything in their lives.

I think something like 90% of beneifts of working age people goes to people in work. Just shows how broken the system is.

I wouldnt call that self absorbed.

That is why it is odd rather than- thats disgusting- both are disgusting because i wouldnt choose either one. But i understand eveyone is not the same, obviously.
But personally faced with either job opportunity i would try very hard to get another job which i prefer.
How do you know the people i know... Just because you dont know people that are happy to be on benefits doesnt mean they dont exist.
Yes they were happy. It can be very free for a 20 something. Rather than being tied to working you can go about doing what you want.
1 person even said they dont want to work, its stupid if you can get stuff free.
Thats why i didnt say im sure some people are happy on benefits as a general statement.
But things do change and people do grow up and realise the other benefits of work.

Also WRT redundancies- a friend of my dad's was employed in a company because it was a new business that got funding for his position for 12 months. The funding was paid entirely up front! and the two owners of the business blew it all on cars for themselves and friend didnt get ONE week's wage from them. They kept telling him the funding wasnt through yet and he would get it when they got it, he went 8 weeks before he finally contacted the funding body and found out the truth. He decided to sue the company so they made him redundant and closed up shop. I still see one of them running around town in his big land rover.

Yes it is self absorbed if you cannot accept not everyone feels the same way as you about something.

The post didn't say I would LIKE to do either things, just that if it was a choice between shagging some boring middle aged bloke and violently killing any animal at all, I would pick the first without question (its probably much better paid aswell). Yes both are horrible jobs but thats either here nor there.

'But personally faced with either job opportunity i would try very hard to get another job which i prefer.'

Well yes, wouldn't anyone? Can you not grasp some people cannot get a job they prefer?

'Yes they were happy. It can be very free for a 20 something. Rather than being tied to working you can go about doing what you want.'

Are you joking??!! You can't afford to do anything or go anywhere on £56 a week when all your food etc has to come out of it aswell. Do you live on the same planet as the rest of us?

Anyone who says they dont want to work because you can get something for free, when that 'for free' doesnt even cover a basic standard of living, is more than likely depressed and feels hopeless.

'1 person even said they dont want to work, its stupid if you can get stuff free.
Thats why i didnt say im sure some people are happy on benefits '

Hilarious. ONE PERSON says to you they don't want to work, therefore you know without a doubt that 'some people' are happy on benefits.

Benefit bashers never cease to amaze me with their bigotry, naivety and blatant discrimination.

Not self absorbed... Its the wrong word.
Im pointing out its a strange choice that i dont think MANY people would make. But clearly you would.
I did not say .. Youre lying noone would do that!

Honey - give up you cant even read, or understand. What i wrote was in qualifiers. Talking about specific people Not generalisations.
And some peoples stupidity does slightly amaze me!
Also i am not benefit bashing.
Gosh if you think this is bashing...
How can you not believe some people could be happy? There is apparently one on this thread.

It just depends on the quality of life you need/want.

From the costs higher in the thread its clear the issue is the fixed expenses of utilities and food going up so much in the last few years.
Wages and benefits both need to rise to allow for this.

Sorry I didn't mean less money I meant of less value due to prescriptions grants etc

Honey - give up you cant even read, or understand. What i wrote was in qualifiers. Talking about specific people Not generalisations.
And some peoples stupidity does slightly amaze me!
Also i am not benefit bashing.
Gosh if you think this is bashing...
How can you not believe some people could be happy? There is apparently one on this thread.

It just depends on the quality of life you need/want.

From the costs higher in the thread its clear the issue is the fixed expenses of utilities and food going up so much in the last few years.
Wages and benefits both need to rise to allow for this.

I can't even read or understand? It shows your level of comprehension and debating skills when you have to resort to personal insults about someone's intelligence.

As it is your standard of literacy and grammar isn't exactly fantastic, is it?

'How can you not believe some people could be happy? There is apparently one on this thread.

It just depends on the quality of life you need/want.'

So now you have a problem with people being content (because I'd call it that, rather than 'happy') with a basic existence on the poverty line? For crying out loud!

Yes I'd agree wages and benefits need to rise with inflation, but this lovely government seems to be like pigs in mud when depriving the most needy of the most basic things.

Its not a 'strange choice' if someone has to choose between murdering innocent animals or losing their benefits and shagging some middle aged married bloke that will probably be finished in 5 minutes anyway. Its a choice many women have to make day in day out and shouldn't be looked down on. Most people would do anything if it means they and their families won't starve.

Not many people are actually having to live on that amount of money. There are a lot of extras.

Not many people are actually having to live on that amount of money. There are a lot of extras.

Could you elaborate on A) how you know not many people are having to live on £56 a week and B) what the "lot of extras" are?

'Not many people are actually having to live on that amount of money. There are a lot of extras.'

Oh right, so because its 'not many' (its actually anyone under the age of 25, and there are loads of young unemployed people, so actually it is quite a lot but hey, I'm Alright Jack?) it doesn't matter? Well not that many people get murdered so that doesn't matter either?

And what are the extras? No one gets given extras off the government but most do have to source extras from elsewhere (their parents, selling drugs, petty crime, prostitution, all things I've witnessed people taking up due to poverty on benefits) because if they didn't they'd be fucked.

Let me guess (again), your a privileged middle class person whose never had to struggle in your life?

I am just getting frustrated at your misunderstanding (willfully?)
There is nothing wrong with my literacy or grammar. Though possibly typing on phone.

Some people would never be happy /content.

if people are willing/able to move there are jobs. So somewhat their happiness/contentedness is in their own hands.

Hopefully the preventing starving us what the benefit is for.

What is your solution then?
How much should job seekers get?
Paid for by the people still working? Surely nothing would suit everyone e.g. OP wanted it based on earnings.

A situation where each job seeker could be offered a job rather than interviewed, if they are lucky, would be a lot fairer and could then possibly lead to naming benefit scroungers. But as it is there doesnt seem to be enough jobs, or too many applicants.

I dont think you would be judged or looked down on if it is to avoid starvation.

Nobody is living independently on that amount of money. I have some experience of job seekers allowance and the difference between contribution based and means tested. Extras are child tax credit housing benefit and so on. I read the other day about somebody who had £1000 a month disposable income. A big difference from living on £71 a week. The benefit system is totally crazy and unfair.

I'd love to know where all these jobs are.

I'd like to know where all the jobs are too.

I've just done a search on Universal Jobmatch for vacancies this week in my sector, within 40 miles of where I live.

There were 765 "jobs".

Of these, 83 were completely unrelated to the search I'd done (compare nursing/IT programmer or admin/delivery and sales driver).

There were 45 work-at-home positions.

There were 588 apprenticeships.

So only 49 actual jobs. You can guarantee that the official statistics will say there were 765 jobs though.

A single unemployed under-25 with no kids (of which there are many, including those who are homeless/in hostels/care leavers) doesn't get any extras. HB will probably not cover all their rent as with no kids it's unlikely they'd get housed by the council, and lots of places will refuse to rent to them on the basis of getting HB. Why should under-25s be penalised just because of their age?

And many people do starve (and freeze in winter since low income doesn't guarantee a winter fuel allowance) on JSA/IS.