Social Security that isn't...

The place for more serious off topic questions, light hearted banter and friendly chat.
dynamicbrick
Posts: 448
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 14:40 pm

Social Security that isn't...

Postby dynamicbrick » Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:34 am

You know, if I were more cynical, I'd say the following is a deliberate ploy by the Government to fiddle the numbers.

My other half has worked part-time for the last ten years, prior to that she worked full time since leaving school at 16. She lost her job last month, and accordingly went off to the job centre to go through the ritual humilation of signing on. Fine, say local job centre - £76 per week, paid fortnightly. As per everyone else... or so we presumed.

A brown envelope arrives in the post this morning, from those lovely types at HMRC/DWP. Words to the effect - 'You did not pay sufficient NI tax year 10/11' therefore they're not paying anything. She can, as far as they're concerned, have nothing from the social security pot, because in a certain 12 month period she didn't earn enough to pay enough in - a threshold set by them.

I've been a right-winger my whole life, but always supported the concept of social security - everyone pays into the scheme, and it's there as a safety net should you need it. Some people pay more, some less, some nothing at all, but it's available to all, without favour, should we need it.

So to say to someone who's been working for 24 years that because in the previous tax year you didn't contribute enough, therefore you're not eligible for the pittance that would otherwise be dished out surely goes against the whole intent of social security.

Now I've never had to sign on, and until the other week neither has she, so we're not familiar with this process. Is this a recent change, or has it always been thus?

User avatar
JGSI
Posts: 3711
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 15:09 pm

Re: Social Security that isn't...

Postby JGSI » Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:59 am

Interesting... problem maybe lies with the fact the no one you can go to actually understands the 'system' anymore... least of all the JobCentre staff.
Will it change with Universal Credit?

User avatar
daviesee
Posts: 6445
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 18:37 pm

Re: Social Security that isn't...

Postby daviesee » Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:14 pm

Go to the local dingy pub on a Thursday afternoon during working hours and ask the guys in there.
Or the bookies nearest to it.

They will know more than most.

I wish I was being sarcastic.
None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.

Paulie W
Posts: 1462
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 21:08 pm
Contact:

Re: Social Security that isn't...

Postby Paulie W » Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:57 pm

My understanding is that you will instead be eligible for a different 'pot' - not that you will get nothing at all. You should get income-based job seekers allowance rather than contribution-based. I'm amazed that this hasnt been made clear to you.

User avatar
Cleat Eastwood
Posts: 7720
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 23:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Social Security that isn't...

Postby Cleat Eastwood » Mon Dec 10, 2012 13:00 pm

Never nice news before xmas, sympathies.

there are 2 types of jsa - are you sure she applied for the right one.

Don't be put off by the brown envelope - you can appeal against any decision.

Oh and it isnt a humiliation to sign on. the greater humiliation i'd would have thought would be the inference from osbourne that your wife is workshy who hides behind closed curtains.

But do appeal or at least question the decison, and have a word with the CAB - sometimes you can be too honest giving out info - and she's best getting it sorted before the Tory tw4ts start the cull in april.

....and finally change your politics :lol:
The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.

dynamicbrick
Posts: 448
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 14:40 pm

Re: Social Security that isn't...

Postby dynamicbrick » Mon Dec 10, 2012 13:30 pm

Thanks chaps

Cleat Eastwood wrote:....and finally change your politics :lol:


They changed some time back old stick.

I'm borderline communist now.

bristolpete
Posts: 1449
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 20:53 pm

Re: Social Security that isn't...

Postby bristolpete » Mon Dec 10, 2012 16:13 pm

Sounds correct.

Your partners NI contributions will have been assessed and based on her hours, despite perhaps you thinking so, they will not meet the criteria to get back what you have 'paid in'. As such, in this situation, the JS+ staff will then refer the claim to a decision maker who literally uses a book called the DMG (decision makers guide) to apply the current legislation relevant to the claim being made.

If they have not, they may well ask if you are in full time renumeration (as a partner) and again, critically, the DMG section will advise the office that in the eyes of the law/legislation (which is all claiming benefit from the Chancellor is), will advise them that you can and are expected to support your partner financially.

Finally, if she could have claimed NI based benefit note that the claim is only 6 months irrespetive of the tenure of employment. This can then become what is known as the means tested version (ergo no income). However, if you cannot claim either or, it is worth claiming for National Insurance conts which will make up her pension when she retires, assuming the social state is in place when that is needed.

For reference I worked in Social Security, DWP and then JC+ for years before getting out due to realising that the job was just dreadful.

User avatar
daviesee
Posts: 6445
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 18:37 pm

Re: Social Security that isn't...

Postby daviesee » Mon Dec 10, 2012 16:30 pm

Furthermore - Don't read any further unless you can stand disappointment.


She probably hasn't contributed enough to collect the pension either.
Do I smell burning torches? :wink:
None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.

dynamicbrick
Posts: 448
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 14:40 pm

Re: Social Security that isn't...

Postby dynamicbrick » Mon Dec 10, 2012 17:10 pm

@bristolpete - Yes, I wasn't debating whether it was technically correct, just the moral correctness of it, and whether it's a clever way of keeping people off the JSA numbers.

@daviesee - I'm 36, she's 39. I'd long ago resigned myself to ther being no state pension and currently budgeting to support us both in old age. Either that or it's underneath the patio for her... :wink:

tiredofwhiners
Posts: 598
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 15:38 pm

Re: Social Security that isn't...

Postby tiredofwhiners » Mon Dec 10, 2012 19:28 pm

daviesee wrote:She probably hasn't contributed enough to collect the pension either.


She can however make backdated payments though to catch up.

DrKJM
Posts: 254
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 18:10 pm

Re: Social Security that isn't...

Postby DrKJM » Mon Dec 10, 2012 19:39 pm

tiredofwhiners wrote:
daviesee wrote:She probably hasn't contributed enough to collect the pension either.


She can however make backdated payments though to catch up.


That's a gamble though. It's not an investment plan: she'd be contributing to keep the current set of pensioners and if the law were to change she may get little or nothing back. If cash were available, and given the OP I'd doubt that, it might be better to squirrel it away. Lord knows how you'd make a rational investment decision on that though.

dynamicbrick
Posts: 448
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 14:40 pm

Re: Social Security that isn't...

Postby dynamicbrick » Mon Dec 10, 2012 20:12 pm

It's not actually about the money per se. We won't starve, but do fall into that trap of me being the sole earner (higher rate tax) and actually bringing home less than a couple both earning half what I do, so the money would be useful.

I'm buggered if I'm (because it'll ultimately come out of my pocket) making back payments on her state pension to bring her back in line when there's no guarantee of there actually being one there. I've got (or will have) enough pension to keep us both comfortable - got my first plan at 18 (18 years ago), and been on company matched-contribution schemes alongside that since '97. We should be okay. Probably...

Which begs another question - if I ended up out of work tomorrow (always a risk in sales), would they say 'Ah, you've contributed so much that you couldn't possibly need JSA'?

User avatar
daviesee
Posts: 6445
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 18:37 pm

Re: Social Security that isn't...

Postby daviesee » Mon Dec 10, 2012 21:25 pm

dynamicbrick wrote:@daviesee - I'm 36, she's 39. I'd long ago resigned myself to ther being no state pension and currently budgeting to support us both in old age. Either that or it's underneath the patio for her... :wink:

From your other post it sounds as if you are sorted. Maybe.

Others just seem to be assuming that they will be all right when the time comes.
I foresee a load of misery ahead. :cry:
None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.

User avatar
redvee
Posts: 11689
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 22:03 pm

Re: Social Security that isn't...

Postby redvee » Mon Dec 10, 2012 23:56 pm

JSA comes in two flavours: Income or Contribution based. I had a similar letter all those years ago when I first signed on as a teenager when things were a lot slacker.

tiredofwhiners
Posts: 598
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 15:38 pm

Re: Social Security that isn't...

Postby tiredofwhiners » Tue Dec 11, 2012 10:46 am

DrKJM wrote:
tiredofwhiners wrote:
daviesee wrote:She probably hasn't contributed enough to collect the pension either.


She can however make backdated payments though to catch up.


That's a gamble though. It's not an investment plan: she'd be contributing to keep the current set of pensioners and if the law were to change she may get little or nothing back. If cash were available, and given the OP I'd doubt that, it might be better to squirrel it away. Lord knows how you'd make a rational investment decision on that though.


In my wifes case it was a fairly easy no brainer as she has most of her 30 years necessary but would be a few (four I think) short by the time she is 60. So all she had to pay was four years minimum contributions, totalling a few thousand, to change her status from half pension to full pension, which more or less pays back after 18 months.

Yes, there's always a danger that the rules may change, but nobody knows and better to pay now and reap the benefits in the future than worry about the future and be unable to do anything about it when nothing happens.


Return to “The Cake Stop”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests