Anyone signed on the dole while benched?

[expat]

We're saying the same thing Expat.

Cool.

[Mart001]

So where does the cutoff come in. Should I take benefits if I have a couple of million in the bank? After all I don't want to spend all my savings.

How about half a million? quarter? 100k?

If you can't find any work for months go and get a job stacking shelves or something. It will tide you over, benefits were never designed so that you could keep a big stack of savings and not have to spend them, they were designed to help people who have nothing.

Your argument is flawed on many levels, the problem is that you honestly can't see why you should spend your savings can you?

if you cant get work... stacking shelves... or something then benefits tide you over during the unemployment, nobodys saying claim benefits instead off doing unskilled labour.

I dont think people are talking about this some of money...

[pmeswani]

Are you seriously telling me a contractor who has a nice stack of savings and money in his company is going to be worse off that some benefits chav if he does not claim benefits whilst looking for his next contract???

please.......

Stop putting words in my mouth. JSA is, from my understanding, not means tested in terms of savings of an individual. If a contractor is a director of a company, then the chances of them getting a JSA is minimal. However, I am prepared to accept that I am wrong if this is not the case. A director, who may be a shareholder of the business, may still draw an income (by means of dividends) from the business. So it would be poor judgement if a contractor tries to claims benefits whilst still drawing an income from the business. The Job Centre may still deam the contractor to be an employee of the business, even if they present the P45 to the Job Centre.

[Rookie]

I bet the OP is laughing to himself. Talk about laying a trap. It a bit like dropping an SBD and leaving the room.

[pmeswani]

They shouldn't, I agree. Personally I'd like to see some form of mandatory work provided for the long-term unemployed who choose that lifestyle, benefits should be there to assist those who genuinely can't work through disability etc. or to support those that are seeking employment (properly, as opposed to going through the motions in order to claim.)

I'd still argue however, that being between contracts does not constitute being "out of work" in the accepted sense. It's one of the risks of contracting and should be treated as such.

I would agree with this post. It is a shame that some people flout (sp?) the system and claim disability allowance when they clearly able to move around freely and able to do work without any assistance (medical or otherwise).

[expat]

Why should those who contributed and then find themselves out of work be worse off than those who choose to live off the taypaxers?

If you find yourself out of work through no fault of your own then you should get help.

Having contributed before is irrelevant. The fact that some people do abuse the system and steal from us all is IMHO equally irrelevant.

But a contractor running a Ltd Co is not out of work between contracts.

[Ardesco]

If you check my post I haven't said that I agree or disagree that someone should claim benefits. I merely stated that someone CAN claim benefits.

Whay are you trying to force your values (noble as they are) on someone else.

I agree that benefits are not measnt to be a top up for those with 'enough' money. But whilst we have a benefit system there will always be ways to exploit it.

You have turned this argument into one about values which is basically unarguable.

The OP stated that he had funds in the company to pay himself, and that there was income still coming into the company. The discussion started when some people said he should claim benefits anyway.

People then started adding wonderful ways in which to exploit the system.

My argument has consistently been that he should not claim and that people who have a war chest for bad times should be using that war chest, not expecting the government to bail them out so that they can leave their war chest untouched.

[Cyberman]

If, as a contractor you are unable to feed yourself after being out of contract for a month (as the OP has been), I'd suggest that contracting is probably not the life for you.

I agree with you there, but the OP asked whether he could claim and I explained how, and there still needs to be a time when the contractor goes dormant and your argument there was totally irrational.
If, however, the OP expects that he could be out long-term as most people are now expecting, it may be reasonably prudent for him to start processing a claim after a month, as it may take a long time before he gets his first payment. I would imagine that a massive backlog of claims is building rapidly with all of the recent redundancies across the country.

[Ravello]

I bet the OP is laughing to himself. Talk about laying a trap. It a bit like dropping an SBD and leaving the room.

I was just thinking that. It has at least warmed General up a bit today though, it's been too quiet lately.

[pmeswani]

If you find yourself out of work through no fault of your own then you should get help.

Having contributed before is irrelevant. The fact that some people do abuse the system and steal from us all is IMHO equally irrelevant.

But a contractor running a Ltd Co is not out of work between contracts.

This is not in dispute. I have accepted, even though not stated, that if one is working through their own Ltd company and is in between contracts, then they are, technically or otherwise, employed, even if they are not paid... unless they put their company in dormant or disolved state.