Forums Forums Wirral Information Wirral Council Welfare assistance grant :Mistake

Makes sense pockerchamp well stated.

Under universal credit it is just about impossible to be worse off if you are in work.

While there is high unemployment, its highly likely that some will be out of work for extended periods, the people that are less employable will normally be the last to get a job while there are numerous people applying for every job. Different people have different abilities, some will always be at the lower end.

It is up to the Government to create an environment where there are jobs, the Tories believe giving money to the rich will let the rich create jobs, Labour believe in concentrating the money on the jobs themselves.

sue good for you im pleased you have never been in some peoples positions,

pokerchamp, your spot on,

diggingdeeper i do not get universal credit because i have children they will not put me onto it therefore i am on jobseekers allowance!and i know people who have been offered jobs but when the jobcentre do a back to work calculation they would be worse off!the problem people have then is the jobcentre then know they have been offered a job and declined it so the people get sanctioned,therefore people are being forced into taking jobs that actually make them financially worse off.believe me if i was £5 a week better off for working i would jump at it but i am certainly not going to work to be worse off as that would be insane!people who say they would still go to work to be worse off are the reason this goverment are doing it to people,and to be quite honest i think they have a screw loose.

@pokerchamp - you will eventually be put on Universal Credit, or at some point it will pay you to elect to be on Universal Credit.

Under the JSA/ESA it is possible to be worse off in work, that's why the system changed to Universal Credit.

Morally, there is no reason why you shouldn't take a job that makes you worse off than when you were unemployed, benefits are not an alternative to employment, they are support for when you are unemployed through no choice of your own. I know that sounds a particularly pompous statement but it is fact, you do not have a right to choose unemployment and benefits, although strangely you can choose with housing benefits (a matter that is also corrected by Universal Credit).

If you are in the position that you are being pushed by the jobcentre into applying for a job where you will be worse off, you need to see citizen advice as soon as possible, before you are offered the job.

you really are not with the reality of how things are for people on benefits at the moment if thats what you think!i have paid my taxes and national insurance for the last 25 years so yes i am entitled to not take a job that makes me financially worse off,i have paid enough money into the system to expect to be rewarded for working rather than be worse off,i take it you have some kind of affiliation with the benefit system by the way your explaining things?and for the record i dont intend to be on universal credit as i dont intend to stay on benefits,but i certainly will not be working to be in a worse financial situation as i think this is morally impaired to expect somebody in this day and age to be forced below the bread line just to be able to say "i have a job"!

I've been over 5 years on benefits and came off them last year.

In more than 25 years I paid far more tax and national insurance than the average person.

No, I've never worked for the state benefits nor council benefits departments nor any of their agencies.

I will reword, the law says you are not allowed to choose to live off benefits by purposely being unemployed. It is not an opinion - it is fact.

Do you really think its moral to claim unemployment benefits when you don't have to? Isn't that exactly what the Government and media feed on to create sensational claims?

For one i never chose to be on benefits the company i worked for went into liquidation therefore i am not purposely on benefits,i dont/haven't nor would i want to CHOOSE a life on benefits.Im lucky in the fact that i dont have much debt but people who have been on benefits for a while and have gotten themselves into quite a lot of debt are stuck in a rut because when their on benefits the debtors are happy to take minimal payments,but then when they get a job the debtors want a hell of a lot more money off them which is why i say you need to be financially better off for working so you can afford to live and get back on your feet,after all isn't that what being in employment is meant to be for?i'm not nor was i ever implying that i would only be lured off benefits for a life of luxury or lavish life style,i am merely pointing out that by going to work i can provide as a father and husband i.e paying bills and or debts,put food on the table and maybe if i was lucky be able to afford to give my kids the odd fun day out!
If at the end of a long tiring week at work i can rest my head safe in the knowledge that all my bills are paid and the wife and kids are happy and healthy, then every single minute at work was enjoyable and worth it in every aspect,benefits only cover the bare minimal and i appreciate that in my hour of need,but to work for less than that is sheer madness!!

If you choose to refuse employment that would take you off benefits, you are choosing to be on benefits.

The criteria for the minimum income is not specified by what the rate of benefits are, its specified by the "minimum amount you need to live on" whose formulation is specified in law.

Incredibly there are still benefits that aren't means tested, but generally these are based on bribing for votes. Why a multi-millionaire needs housing benefits was always beyond me, it clearly should have been a means-tested benefit from day one.

Maintenance of a debt can appear to be a problem, however the Government has changed a number of laws which further enable debt to be written off if it can be shown that the debt is going to cause unnecessary hardship for the foreseeable future. If anyone is in this situation then they can go and see citizen advice who may refer you to stepchange or similar.

Initially getting a debt written-off can appear to be wrong, however, there are two parties, the lender is much more qualified to understand the risks of lending so as a professional has to take a hit when their decision to lend goes wrong, much the same as any other investment.

If you read any benefit letters about benefits it states "the law says you need to live on" with the amount next to it,so if somebody was to accept a job that would bring them down to below that amount then it is deemed wrong and not enough to live on.
And for the record i have never refused any kind of work,we obviously have a differece of opinion about this and i dont believe we will agree on each others view on things!

You are correct and the job centre cannot insist on you being put in an employment whereby your total incomings would be less than the minimum amount to live on unless there are some capital issues.

Most people try to defend themselves by incorrectly comparing their prospective incomings to benefits instead of comparing to the minimum amount to live on and that is how the jobcentre can ignore their argument.

Same shit. On yet another thread. Also

hear hear

Because when your in a job it's easier to get another job, hopefully with better pay so it will take you above what you are paid on the dole.
The longer anyone is out of work because they choose too because the dole pays more will in effect never try to get a job at all.

Here is an example.2 polish poeple only living on the wirral for 2 days now.They both got a job temping at a warehouse 10am till 7pm.And they have found work.till they get a full time one.Didnt take them long to find work.And it is 6.50 an hour pay.