JSA and gaining employment

When those receiving JSA find a part time job their JSA is removed pond for pound save the first £5 earned. This is a serious disincentive for a person to take a part-time job for less than the JSA, for example accepting a job cleaning for 8 hour s week on min wage would earn that person around £50 however they will only see £5 of that increase because their JSA will be reduced by £45 effectively, they will be working for 50p an hour. No incentive at all!
So my idea is …..
To reduce JSA on a sliding percentage of the earnings.

Why is this idea important?

When those receiving JSA find a part time job their JSA is removed pond for pound save the first £5 earned. This is a serious disincentive for a person to take a part-time job for less than the JSA, for example accepting a job cleaning for 8 hour s week on min wage would earn that person around £50 however they will only see £5 of that increase because their JSA will be reduced by £45 effectively, they will be working for 50p an hour. No incentive at all!
So my idea is …..
To reduce JSA on a sliding percentage of the earnings.

Local Housing Allowance

As a Landlord I am increasingly dumstruck at the previous governments idea to give tenants control over the housing benefit that they receive. This is simply not working. The tenants are receiving £300-£400 per month and not passing it on to the Landlords. This causes them problems paying for their buy to let mortgages and in turn causes Landlords to evict tenants who in turn start the whole process again. They fraudilently take money off the government, spend this on whatever they want and the Landlord is left out of pocket. I rang a tenant last week to see when she was going to pay her rent and she was in Spain!! How can she afford to go on holiday to Spain? She has enjoyed 2 weeks in the sun, come back, packed up some of her stuff, left the house a mess and has done a moonlight. This should never have happened. They cannot look after large amounts of money. Christmas time is a nightmare. They receive £400 a couple of weeks before Christmas and you honestly expect them to pass on this money. It does not happen. They have a jolly good time 

Why is this idea important?

As a Landlord I am increasingly dumstruck at the previous governments idea to give tenants control over the housing benefit that they receive. This is simply not working. The tenants are receiving £300-£400 per month and not passing it on to the Landlords. This causes them problems paying for their buy to let mortgages and in turn causes Landlords to evict tenants who in turn start the whole process again. They fraudilently take money off the government, spend this on whatever they want and the Landlord is left out of pocket. I rang a tenant last week to see when she was going to pay her rent and she was in Spain!! How can she afford to go on holiday to Spain? She has enjoyed 2 weeks in the sun, come back, packed up some of her stuff, left the house a mess and has done a moonlight. This should never have happened. They cannot look after large amounts of money. Christmas time is a nightmare. They receive £400 a couple of weeks before Christmas and you honestly expect them to pass on this money. It does not happen. They have a jolly good time 

No job seekers allowance if there are unskilled jobs available.

No job seekers allowance if there are any unskilled jobs available in the job centre.

Sorting by the person who has been unemployed longest,  they are given an unskilled job on if they say no or stay less than 3 months no JSA. This follows until there are no jobs left at the job centre.

Why is this idea important?

No job seekers allowance if there are any unskilled jobs available in the job centre.

Sorting by the person who has been unemployed longest,  they are given an unskilled job on if they say no or stay less than 3 months no JSA. This follows until there are no jobs left at the job centre.

Abolish The Jobseekers’ Act 1995

This is a very nasty, vindictive, scapegoating law, copying previous ideas that didn't work and it's based on a lie. That lie is – workers decide whether or not to work. The truth of the matter is that employers, not workers, decide whether workers can work or not. It's based on The Poor Law 1834 (which brought in the Workhouse), as well as on a 1930's scheme where the Conservatives thought that the unemployed had "gone soft" and needed to be "toughened up for work". During both these periods there were very few or no jobs available. It should be top priority to abolish the Jobseekers' Act 1995, because it means that millions of people have now got a death sentence hanging over them. I wonder how many people died of JSA under the new Labour Govt? I think we should be told. As a long standing Lib Dem voter, I feel betrayed by their failure to impose Proportional Representation immediately or abolish JSA immediately. Reinstate the Social Security Act 1976, bringing back Unemployment Benefit, and Supplementary Benefit. I also think benefit rates should be doubled. I'm on Income Support, so according to the unchecked Conservative "Welfare Reform" plans, I haven't got long left to live. 

Why is this idea important?

This is a very nasty, vindictive, scapegoating law, copying previous ideas that didn't work and it's based on a lie. That lie is – workers decide whether or not to work. The truth of the matter is that employers, not workers, decide whether workers can work or not. It's based on The Poor Law 1834 (which brought in the Workhouse), as well as on a 1930's scheme where the Conservatives thought that the unemployed had "gone soft" and needed to be "toughened up for work". During both these periods there were very few or no jobs available. It should be top priority to abolish the Jobseekers' Act 1995, because it means that millions of people have now got a death sentence hanging over them. I wonder how many people died of JSA under the new Labour Govt? I think we should be told. As a long standing Lib Dem voter, I feel betrayed by their failure to impose Proportional Representation immediately or abolish JSA immediately. Reinstate the Social Security Act 1976, bringing back Unemployment Benefit, and Supplementary Benefit. I also think benefit rates should be doubled. I'm on Income Support, so according to the unchecked Conservative "Welfare Reform" plans, I haven't got long left to live. 

Reform of the unfair method used to calculate assumed income applied to savings

For claimants on means tested benefits there is a threshold beyond which savings effect allowance.  This begins at £6,000.  The maximum allowed is £16,000.  Regardless of how much money is actually received, the assumed income from savings is calculated at £1 a week for every £250 (or part thereof) of capital above the £6,000 lower threshold or £2 for anyone on pension credit.  This gives a notional interest rate of 20.8% for anyone not entitled to pension credit.  When has any bank ever paid an interest rate of 20%?  On the upper limit of savings this would give net annual income from interest of £3328 or £64 a week on the full £16,000 or £2080 (£40/week) on the £10,000.

OK there comes a point where savings are of such a level that interest payments go way beyond the benefit entitlement.  And the goverment is not in the business of providing a legacy but it doesn't take very long to get through £10,000 at today's prices and they are, in effect, willing to pay in retrospect for the spendthrift's foreign holidays and sky TV channels.  Why then punish those who have made the effort?

I know that it isn't that long since the figures were revised but that revision didn't go far enough.  There needs to be better correlation between actual and assumed income.  The problem of basing the calculation on actual income would come, of course, from the various and variable interest rates available.  However, using the basic (or even the highest) rate paid by the National Savings Bank – or even the highest paid by the high street banks (currently 6% for the top ISA) as of the beginning of the financial year, would at least allow those responsible citizens gleen some benefit from their husbandry.

Why is this idea important?

For claimants on means tested benefits there is a threshold beyond which savings effect allowance.  This begins at £6,000.  The maximum allowed is £16,000.  Regardless of how much money is actually received, the assumed income from savings is calculated at £1 a week for every £250 (or part thereof) of capital above the £6,000 lower threshold or £2 for anyone on pension credit.  This gives a notional interest rate of 20.8% for anyone not entitled to pension credit.  When has any bank ever paid an interest rate of 20%?  On the upper limit of savings this would give net annual income from interest of £3328 or £64 a week on the full £16,000 or £2080 (£40/week) on the £10,000.

OK there comes a point where savings are of such a level that interest payments go way beyond the benefit entitlement.  And the goverment is not in the business of providing a legacy but it doesn't take very long to get through £10,000 at today's prices and they are, in effect, willing to pay in retrospect for the spendthrift's foreign holidays and sky TV channels.  Why then punish those who have made the effort?

I know that it isn't that long since the figures were revised but that revision didn't go far enough.  There needs to be better correlation between actual and assumed income.  The problem of basing the calculation on actual income would come, of course, from the various and variable interest rates available.  However, using the basic (or even the highest) rate paid by the National Savings Bank – or even the highest paid by the high street banks (currently 6% for the top ISA) as of the beginning of the financial year, would at least allow those responsible citizens gleen some benefit from their husbandry.

Job Seekers Allowance – Remove the power of the adjudicator to contact previous employer in certain cases

Whilst applying for Job Seekers Allowance, I was told that an adjudicator would contact my previous employer for verification.  My employment was terminated by mutual consent and a compromise agreement was signed.  Why, when I have worked all my life and paid my National Insurance contributions, does the decision to pay me what I am entitled to, rest in the hands of my former employer  for verification.  I do not want him to know that I wish to apply for JAS.  I was happy to provide a copy of all documentation to the Job Centre. 

Consequently I turned down my right and entitlement to JAS and did not claim, on the basis that I think it questions my integrity.  I am furious that I am entitled to this allowance but have to go through measures that are unpalatable, unneccessary and intrusive.  When I refused to go forward with the claim, the job centre worker tried to persuade me to continue but added that the adjudicator could not operate on a case by case basis.

I also heard another applicant applying for JAS and he said he'd been sacked – there was no discussion as to whether his previous employer would be contacted, and it was turned into a joke.

Why is this idea important?

Whilst applying for Job Seekers Allowance, I was told that an adjudicator would contact my previous employer for verification.  My employment was terminated by mutual consent and a compromise agreement was signed.  Why, when I have worked all my life and paid my National Insurance contributions, does the decision to pay me what I am entitled to, rest in the hands of my former employer  for verification.  I do not want him to know that I wish to apply for JAS.  I was happy to provide a copy of all documentation to the Job Centre. 

Consequently I turned down my right and entitlement to JAS and did not claim, on the basis that I think it questions my integrity.  I am furious that I am entitled to this allowance but have to go through measures that are unpalatable, unneccessary and intrusive.  When I refused to go forward with the claim, the job centre worker tried to persuade me to continue but added that the adjudicator could not operate on a case by case basis.

I also heard another applicant applying for JAS and he said he'd been sacked – there was no discussion as to whether his previous employer would be contacted, and it was turned into a joke.

Housing, Benefits & Jobs

Having had the misfortune of being made redundant through ill health last November and also being made homeless for part of this year, I have had to hunt high and low for somewhere to live and it has been far from being easy!

The biggest problem with being unemployed, is the simple fact that a great many landlords do not accept DSS tenants. Look at most adverts for property that is available to rent and you will see the words NO DSS attached to the end of the advert. 

Having researched the problem myself, I have discovered that there is a serious level of discrimination towards those who are unfortunate enough to have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

Your government may be looking to cut benefits in order to reduce the national debt, but for someone like myself who is desperate to get back in to work and also done their damned hardest to get off the street, benefits are vital until new employment can be found. By councils delaying benefits or constantly messing people around, they are adding even more stress to what is already a difficult time.

Yes, the benefits system needs a re-think and yes, there are people who abuse it, but there are a hell of a lot of people who need it, that are struggling to survive! 

I am on Job Seekers Allowance of £65 per week. £7.65 per week  is deducted from that because I had no choice except to apply for a Social Fund Loan in order to be able to get the house I am now living in. This leaves me with just over £57 a week to survive on. Once I pay for electric, gas and food, I am left with virtually nothing. I do not own a television and even if I did, I would not be able to afford a licence! I have no car, and yet again if I did, I could not afford to run it! 

What I am asking is that the government start to look at the reasons why the people on DSS are struggling to find employment…. is it because of a lack of jobs? A lack of skills? There could be any number of reasons. 

In my particular case, I was made redundant through ill health last year, since making a recovery, I have applied for over 180 jobs since March this year. Out of the 180 jobs I have applied for, I have had exactly 8 letters telling me I was not suitable for the position or was not qualified enough and I have been asked to one (1) interview! The rest I have not heard anything from! So as a part of looking at the reasons why people are struggling to find employment, look at the jobs which are being advertised! 

I have been registered with Jobs Today, Monster and several other websites. Since registering, I have checked them daily and all I see is a repeat of the same adverts by the same companies with very little difference elsewhere. Many of these companies when you read their adverts often talk about career prospects within the company and how you can advance through the ranks. If this is the case, how come so many of the companies advertising these claims of fabulous career prospects are advertising elsewhere…why are they not promoting their current staff to the managerial jobs which dominate the Jobs website pages and replacing the staff who are promoted?

Why is this idea important?

Having had the misfortune of being made redundant through ill health last November and also being made homeless for part of this year, I have had to hunt high and low for somewhere to live and it has been far from being easy!

The biggest problem with being unemployed, is the simple fact that a great many landlords do not accept DSS tenants. Look at most adverts for property that is available to rent and you will see the words NO DSS attached to the end of the advert. 

Having researched the problem myself, I have discovered that there is a serious level of discrimination towards those who are unfortunate enough to have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

Your government may be looking to cut benefits in order to reduce the national debt, but for someone like myself who is desperate to get back in to work and also done their damned hardest to get off the street, benefits are vital until new employment can be found. By councils delaying benefits or constantly messing people around, they are adding even more stress to what is already a difficult time.

Yes, the benefits system needs a re-think and yes, there are people who abuse it, but there are a hell of a lot of people who need it, that are struggling to survive! 

I am on Job Seekers Allowance of £65 per week. £7.65 per week  is deducted from that because I had no choice except to apply for a Social Fund Loan in order to be able to get the house I am now living in. This leaves me with just over £57 a week to survive on. Once I pay for electric, gas and food, I am left with virtually nothing. I do not own a television and even if I did, I would not be able to afford a licence! I have no car, and yet again if I did, I could not afford to run it! 

What I am asking is that the government start to look at the reasons why the people on DSS are struggling to find employment…. is it because of a lack of jobs? A lack of skills? There could be any number of reasons. 

In my particular case, I was made redundant through ill health last year, since making a recovery, I have applied for over 180 jobs since March this year. Out of the 180 jobs I have applied for, I have had exactly 8 letters telling me I was not suitable for the position or was not qualified enough and I have been asked to one (1) interview! The rest I have not heard anything from! So as a part of looking at the reasons why people are struggling to find employment, look at the jobs which are being advertised! 

I have been registered with Jobs Today, Monster and several other websites. Since registering, I have checked them daily and all I see is a repeat of the same adverts by the same companies with very little difference elsewhere. Many of these companies when you read their adverts often talk about career prospects within the company and how you can advance through the ranks. If this is the case, how come so many of the companies advertising these claims of fabulous career prospects are advertising elsewhere…why are they not promoting their current staff to the managerial jobs which dominate the Jobs website pages and replacing the staff who are promoted?

Abolish Reducing Benefits For People Living Together

Currently people on benefits; In particular Jobseekers allowance; can have their benefits cut as a result of being in a relationship with someone they live with.

Abolish this ruling and make it simply that a person is assessed as an individual for their benefits claim.  

Maintain the same rules regarding seeking work as for any other job seeker. The same expiration of benefits; the same requirements for training and proof of looking for work would be required.

Why is this idea important?

Currently people on benefits; In particular Jobseekers allowance; can have their benefits cut as a result of being in a relationship with someone they live with.

Abolish this ruling and make it simply that a person is assessed as an individual for their benefits claim.  

Maintain the same rules regarding seeking work as for any other job seeker. The same expiration of benefits; the same requirements for training and proof of looking for work would be required.