Signing on as unemployed

Discussion in 'UK Tax Credits and Benefits' started by Sean, Mar 5, 2010.

  1. Sean

    Sean Guest

    Hi, Would there be any point in signing-on as unemployed for someone
    who currently has no work and was previously self-employed for years
    AND who has a well-paid partner at home? I'm sure that he wouldn't be
    entitled to any JSA or IS but is there any other benefit, financial or
    otherwise (apart from job-seeking advice), he might be entitled to? TIA
     
    Sean, Mar 5, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Sean

    Robbie Guest

    Sean wrote:
    > Hi, Would there be any point in signing-on as unemployed for someone
    > who currently has no work and was previously self-employed for years
    > AND who has a well-paid partner at home? I'm sure that he wouldn't be
    > entitled to any JSA or IS but is there any other benefit, financial or
    > otherwise (apart from job-seeking advice), he might be entitled to? TIA
    >


    In practical terms, very little point at all. You wouldn't qualify for
    IS anyway and it is unlikely that there will be any entitlement to the
    means tested element of JSA (perhaps this is what you were thinking of
    when you mention IS, it changed back in 1996) and in the circumstances,
    contributions based JSA either.

    The only gains:

    you may be able to sign on and get NI credits

    if you have any insurance cover (eg on loans) that require proof of
    unemployment to pay out then it may be worthwhile

    If you decide to work for an employer in the future you can provide some
    sort of documentary proof of being unemployed for this period

    You'd need to go through the whole form filling and interview process
    though, as well as showing you are available for and actively seeking
    work etc.
    --
    Robbie
     
    Robbie, Mar 5, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Sean

    Robin T Cox Guest

    Robbie wrote:

    > The only gains:
    >
    > you may be able to sign on and get NI credits


    and NI credits will count towards your State Pension.

    --
    Facts are sacred ... but comment is free
     
    Robin T Cox, Mar 5, 2010
    #3
  4. Sean

    Niteawk Guest

    "Robbie" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Sean wrote:
    >> Hi, Would there be any point in signing-on as unemployed for someone who
    >> currently has no work and was previously self-employed for years AND who
    >> has a well-paid partner at home? I'm sure that he wouldn't be entitled
    >> to any JSA or IS but is there any other benefit, financial or otherwise
    >> (apart from job-seeking advice), he might be entitled to? TIA
    >>

    >
    > In practical terms, very little point at all. You wouldn't qualify for IS
    > anyway and it is unlikely that there will be any entitlement to the means
    > tested element of JSA (perhaps this is what you were thinking of when you
    > mention IS, it changed back in 1996) and in the circumstances,
    > contributions based JSA either.
    >
    > The only gains:
    >
    > you may be able to sign on and get NI credits
    >
    > if you have any insurance cover (eg on loans) that require proof of
    > unemployment to pay out then it may be worthwhile
    >
    > If you decide to work for an employer in the future you can provide some
    > sort of documentary proof of being unemployed for this period
    >
    > You'd need to go through the whole form filling and interview process
    > though, as well as showing you are available for and actively seeking work
    > etc.
    > --
    > Robbie



    I would have thought he is entitled to JSA for 6 months if he paid tax, that
    is the very least I would expect.
     
    Niteawk, Mar 5, 2010
    #4
  5. Sean

    Sean Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    >
    >
    >
    >"Robbie" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> Sean wrote:
    >>> Hi, Would there be any point in signing-on as unemployed for someone who
    >>> currently has no work and was previously self-employed for years AND who
    >>> has a well-paid partner at home? I'm sure that he wouldn't be entitled
    >>> to any JSA or IS but is there any other benefit, financial or otherwise
    >>> (apart from job-seeking advice), he might be entitled to? TIA
    >>>

    >>
    >> In practical terms, very little point at all. You wouldn't qualify for IS
    >> anyway and it is unlikely that there will be any entitlement to the means
    >> tested element of JSA (perhaps this is what you were thinking of when you
    >> mention IS, it changed back in 1996) and in the circumstances,
    >> contributions based JSA either.
    >>
    >> The only gains:
    >>
    >> you may be able to sign on and get NI credits
    >>
    >> if you have any insurance cover (eg on loans) that require proof of
    >> unemployment to pay out then it may be worthwhile
    >>
    >> If you decide to work for an employer in the future you can provide some
    >> sort of documentary proof of being unemployed for this period
    >>
    >> You'd need to go through the whole form filling and interview process
    >> though, as well as showing you are available for and actively seeking work
    >> etc.
    >> --
    >> Robbie

    >
    >
    >I would have thought he is entitled to JSA for 6 months if he paid tax, that
    >is the very least I would expect.


    Thanks for the advice and comments, guys. It confirms what I feared to be
    the case. As to Niteawk's comments, I see his uninformed and misleading
    contribution is still up to his usual standards.
     
    Sean, Mar 5, 2010
    #5
  6. Sean

    Niteawk Guest

    "Sean" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>,
    >
    > says...
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>"Robbie" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> Sean wrote:
    >>>> Hi, Would there be any point in signing-on as unemployed for someone
    >>>> who
    >>>> currently has no work and was previously self-employed for years AND
    >>>> who
    >>>> has a well-paid partner at home? I'm sure that he wouldn't be entitled
    >>>> to any JSA or IS but is there any other benefit, financial or otherwise
    >>>> (apart from job-seeking advice), he might be entitled to? TIA
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> In practical terms, very little point at all. You wouldn't qualify for
    >>> IS
    >>> anyway and it is unlikely that there will be any entitlement to the
    >>> means
    >>> tested element of JSA (perhaps this is what you were thinking of when
    >>> you
    >>> mention IS, it changed back in 1996) and in the circumstances,
    >>> contributions based JSA either.
    >>>
    >>> The only gains:
    >>>
    >>> you may be able to sign on and get NI credits
    >>>
    >>> if you have any insurance cover (eg on loans) that require proof of
    >>> unemployment to pay out then it may be worthwhile
    >>>
    >>> If you decide to work for an employer in the future you can provide some
    >>> sort of documentary proof of being unemployed for this period
    >>>
    >>> You'd need to go through the whole form filling and interview process
    >>> though, as well as showing you are available for and actively seeking
    >>> work
    >>> etc.
    >>> --
    >>> Robbie

    >>
    >>
    >>I would have thought he is entitled to JSA for 6 months if he paid tax,
    >>that
    >>is the very least I would expect.

    >
    > Thanks for the advice and comments, guys. It confirms what I feared to be
    > the case. As to Niteawk's comments, I see his uninformed and misleading
    > contribution is still up to his usual standards.
    >
    >


    Pity you dont read to well, depending on income and savings, he might
    qualify for income based JSA.
     
    Niteawk, Mar 6, 2010
    #6
  7. Sean

    Guest

    On 6 Mar, 01:42, "Niteawk" <> wrote:
    > "Sean" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > In article <>,
    > >
    > > says...

    >
    > >>"Robbie" <> wrote in message
    > >>news:...
    > >>> Sean wrote:
    > >>>> Hi, Would there be any point in signing-on as unemployed for someone
    > >>>> who
    > >>>> currently has no work and was previously self-employed for years AND
    > >>>> who
    > >>>> has a well-paid partner at home?  I'm sure that he wouldn't be entitled
    > >>>> to any JSA or IS but is there any other benefit, financial or otherwise
    > >>>> (apart from job-seeking advice), he might be entitled to? TIA

    >
    > >>> In practical terms, very little point at all. You wouldn't qualify for
    > >>> IS
    > >>> anyway and it is unlikely that there will be any entitlement to the
    > >>> means
    > >>> tested element of JSA (perhaps this is what you were thinking of when
    > >>> you
    > >>> mention IS, it changed back in 1996) and in the circumstances,
    > >>> contributions based JSA either.

    >
    > >>> The only gains:

    >
    > >>> you may be able to sign on and get NI credits

    >
    > >>> if you have any insurance cover (eg on loans) that require proof of
    > >>> unemployment to pay out then it may be worthwhile

    >
    > >>> If you decide to work for an employer in the future you can provide some
    > >>> sort of documentary proof of being unemployed for this period

    >
    > >>> You'd need to go through the whole form filling and interview process
    > >>> though, as well as showing you are available for and actively seeking
    > >>> work
    > >>> etc.
    > >>> --
    > >>> Robbie

    >
    > >>I would have thought he is entitled to JSA for 6 months if he paid tax,
    > >>that
    > >>is the very least I would expect.

    >
    > > Thanks for the advice and comments, guys. It confirms what I feared to be
    > > the case. As to Niteawk's comments, I see his uninformed and misleading
    > > contribution is still up to his usual standards.

    >
    > Pity you dont read to well,  depending on income and savings, he might
    > qualify for income based JSA.- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    With a well paid partner at home?
    Read up on what income is used for income based JSA before you offer
    advice.

    Martin <><
     
    , Mar 6, 2010
    #7
  8. Sean

    Sean Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    >
    >


    >
    >Pity you dont read to well, depending on income and savings, he might
    >qualify for income based JSA.


    No, it's a pity you don't read what I said. As Martin has pointed out to
    you, I deliberately mentioned his 'well-paid partner'. Because of this he
    doesn't qualify for the means-tested JSA.

    >I would have thought he is entitled to JSA for 6 months if he paid tax,
    >that is the very least I would expect.


    The fact that he paid income tax when working as self-employed doesn't
    entitle him to the non-means tested JSA either.
     
    Sean, Mar 6, 2010
    #8
  9. Sean

    Niteawk Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    On 6 Mar, 01:42, "Niteawk" <> wrote:
    > "Sean" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > In article <>,
    > >
    > > says...

    >
    > >>"Robbie" <> wrote in message
    > >>news:...
    > >>> Sean wrote:
    > >>>> Hi, Would there be any point in signing-on as unemployed for someone
    > >>>> who
    > >>>> currently has no work and was previously self-employed for years AND
    > >>>> who
    > >>>> has a well-paid partner at home? I'm sure that he wouldn't be
    > >>>> entitled
    > >>>> to any JSA or IS but is there any other benefit, financial or
    > >>>> otherwise
    > >>>> (apart from job-seeking advice), he might be entitled to? TIA

    >
    > >>> In practical terms, very little point at all. You wouldn't qualify for
    > >>> IS
    > >>> anyway and it is unlikely that there will be any entitlement to the
    > >>> means
    > >>> tested element of JSA (perhaps this is what you were thinking of when
    > >>> you
    > >>> mention IS, it changed back in 1996) and in the circumstances,
    > >>> contributions based JSA either.

    >
    > >>> The only gains:

    >
    > >>> you may be able to sign on and get NI credits

    >
    > >>> if you have any insurance cover (eg on loans) that require proof of
    > >>> unemployment to pay out then it may be worthwhile

    >
    > >>> If you decide to work for an employer in the future you can provide
    > >>> some
    > >>> sort of documentary proof of being unemployed for this period

    >
    > >>> You'd need to go through the whole form filling and interview process
    > >>> though, as well as showing you are available for and actively seeking
    > >>> work
    > >>> etc.
    > >>> --
    > >>> Robbie

    >
    > >>I would have thought he is entitled to JSA for 6 months if he paid tax,
    > >>that
    > >>is the very least I would expect.

    >
    > > Thanks for the advice and comments, guys. It confirms what I feared to
    > > be
    > > the case. As to Niteawk's comments, I see his uninformed and misleading
    > > contribution is still up to his usual standards.

    >
    > Pity you dont read to well, depending on income and savings, he might
    > qualify for income based JSA.- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    With a well paid partner at home?
    Read up on what income is used for income based JSA before you offer
    advice.

    Martin <><

    Means nothing, what a wife does with her money is her business, there is no
    law that says she has to support or give money to her husband. Situations
    like that tend to lead to divorce.
     
    Niteawk, Mar 6, 2010
    #9
  10. Sean

    Niteawk Guest

    "Sean" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>,
    >
    > says...
    >>
    >>

    >
    >>
    >>Pity you dont read to well, depending on income and savings, he might
    >>qualify for income based JSA.

    >
    > No, it's a pity you don't read what I said. As Martin has pointed out to
    > you, I deliberately mentioned his 'well-paid partner'. Because of this he
    > doesn't qualify for the means-tested JSA.
    >
    >>I would have thought he is entitled to JSA for 6 months if he paid tax,
    >>that is the very least I would expect.

    >
    > The fact that he paid income tax when working as self-employed doesn't
    > entitle him to the non-means tested JSA either.
    >


    Even if he had no money to live on?
     
    Niteawk, Mar 6, 2010
    #10
  11. Sean

    Guest

    On 6 Mar, 13:10, "Niteawk" <> wrote:
    <snipped>
    >
    > Means nothing, what a wife does with her money is her business, there is no
    > law that says she has to support or give money to her husband. Situations
    > like that tend to lead to divorce.- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    Again, read up on what is used for income based JSA.


    Martin <><
     
    , Mar 6, 2010
    #11
  12. Sean

    Sean Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    >
    >
    >
    >"Sean" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> In article <>,
    >>
    >> says...
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>>
    >>>Pity you dont read to well, depending on income and savings, he might
    >>>qualify for income based JSA.

    >>
    >> No, it's a pity you don't read what I said. As Martin has pointed out to
    >> you, I deliberately mentioned his 'well-paid partner'. Because of this

    he
    >> doesn't qualify for the means-tested JSA.
    >>
    >>>I would have thought he is entitled to JSA for 6 months if he paid tax,
    >>>that is the very least I would expect.

    >>
    >> The fact that he paid income tax when working as self-employed doesn't
    >> entitle him to the non-means tested JSA either.
    >>

    >
    >Even if he had no money to live on?
    >


    Yes, even if he has no money at all of his own to live on. His partner's
    income is taken into account as the income of the couple. How long have
    you been following the messages and 'contributing' to this newsgroup?
     
    Sean, Mar 6, 2010
    #12
  13. Sean

    Niteawk Guest

    "Sean" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>,
    >
    > says...
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>"Sean" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> In article <>,
    >>>
    >>> says...
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>Pity you dont read to well, depending on income and savings, he might
    >>>>qualify for income based JSA.
    >>>
    >>> No, it's a pity you don't read what I said. As Martin has pointed out to
    >>> you, I deliberately mentioned his 'well-paid partner'. Because of this

    > he
    >>> doesn't qualify for the means-tested JSA.
    >>>
    >>>>I would have thought he is entitled to JSA for 6 months if he paid tax,
    >>>>that is the very least I would expect.
    >>>
    >>> The fact that he paid income tax when working as self-employed doesn't
    >>> entitle him to the non-means tested JSA either.
    >>>

    >>
    >>Even if he had no money to live on?
    >>

    >
    > Yes, even if he has no money at all of his own to live on. His partner's
    > income is taken into account as the income of the couple. How long have
    > you been following the messages and 'contributing' to this newsgroup?
    >


    And what happens when he tells them his wife does not support him, she
    sleeps in one room, he sleeps in the other, which is very common these days.
     
    Niteawk, Mar 6, 2010
    #13
  14. Sean

    Guest

    On 6 Mar, 17:37, "Niteawk" <> wrote:
    <snipped>
    >
    > And what happens when he tells them his wife does not support him, she
    > sleeps in one room, he sleeps in the other, which is very common these days.- Hide quoted text -
    >


    Then the pair of them have bigger problems than whether one of them
    would get jobseekers allowance.

    Some benefits look at household income, regardless of whether you want
    it that way.


    Martin <><
     
    , Mar 6, 2010
    #14
  15. Sean

    Niteawk Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 6 Mar, 17:37, "Niteawk" <> wrote:
    > <snipped>
    >>
    >> And what happens when he tells them his wife does not support him, she
    >> sleeps in one room, he sleeps in the other, which is very common these
    >> days.- Hide quoted text -
    >>

    >
    > Then the pair of them have bigger problems than whether one of them
    > would get jobseekers allowance.
    >
    > Some benefits look at household income, regardless of whether you want
    > it that way.
    >
    >


    It has nothing to do with how I want it, it is how the government wants it
    fool. I see this happening all the time, its the system that is at fault.
    You end up with couples living or pretending to live apart, and depending on
    their current status, one working or not, one or both get HB as well as JSA
    x 2. Double bubble.
     
    Niteawk, Mar 7, 2010
    #15
  16. Sean

    Guest

    On 7 Mar, 15:21, "Niteawk" <> wrote:
    <snipped>
    > It has nothing to do with how I want it, it is how the government wants it
    > fool. I see this happening all the time, its the system that is at fault.
    > You end up with couples living or pretending to live apart, and depending on
    > their current status, one working or not, one or both get HB as well as JSA
    > x 2. Double bubble.


    The system may be at fault but it is the system we have now. Please,
    don't give advice based on what you see as a fault.
    By all means campaign to change the system but don't confuse what you
    want with what the government currently has.

    Martin <><
     
    , Mar 7, 2010
    #16
  17. Sean

    Niteawk Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 7 Mar, 15:21, "Niteawk" <> wrote:
    > <snipped>
    >> It has nothing to do with how I want it, it is how the government wants
    >> it
    >> fool. I see this happening all the time, its the system that is at fault.
    >> You end up with couples living or pretending to live apart, and depending
    >> on
    >> their current status, one working or not, one or both get HB as well as
    >> JSA
    >> x 2. Double bubble.

    >
    > The system may be at fault but it is the system we have now. Please,
    > don't give advice based on what you see as a fault.
    > By all means campaign to change the system but don't confuse what you
    > want with what the government currently has.
    >
    > Martin <><



    You can get off your moral high horse now. We all know the system is
    corrupt, just like our MP's.
     
    Niteawk, Mar 7, 2010
    #17
  18. Sean

    Guest

    On 7 Mar, 20:23, "Niteawk" <> wrote:
    <snipped>
    >
    > You can get off your moral high horse now. We all know the system is
    > corrupt, just like our MP's


    Sorry, we don't all know that the system is corrupt. Not perfect, not
    by a long shot, but hardly corrupt.

    Martin <><
     
    , Mar 7, 2010
    #18
  19. Sean

    Niteawk Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 7 Mar, 20:23, "Niteawk" <> wrote:
    > <snipped>
    >>
    >> You can get off your moral high horse now. We all know the system is
    >> corrupt, just like our MP's

    >
    > Sorry, we don't all know that the system is corrupt. Not perfect, not
    > by a long shot, but hardly corrupt.
    >


    They are not only corrupt, they are criminals IMO.


    http://www.dwpcorruption.co.uk/index.html
     
    Niteawk, Mar 8, 2010
    #19
  20. Sean

    Guest

    On 8 Mar, 14:35, "Niteawk" <> wrote:
    > <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    > > On 7 Mar, 20:23, "Niteawk" <> wrote:
    > > <snipped>

    >
    > >> You can get off your moral high horse now. We all know the system is
    > >> corrupt, just like our MP's

    >
    > > Sorry, we don't all know that the system is corrupt. Not perfect, not
    > > by a long shot, but hardly corrupt.

    >
    > They are not only corrupt, they are criminals IMO.
    >
    > http://www.dwpcorruption.co.uk/index.html


    Ah, so a disinterested site then.
    Reads like ideology more than fact.

    And at least one of those stories is about a charity (RNID), not the
    DWP. Rather a large difference between Really Not Interested in Deaf
    (RNID) who campaign on many issues and the DWP.
    And lets not forget the references to zionist homosexuals in the site,
    always good in certain types of ideology. I thought you didn't like
    foreign terrorists, the site you gave has some of the same propoganda.
    And thats just from skimming through a couple of articles.

    Still, if it makes you happy that some conspiracy theorists somewhere
    have come up with a site for you to read, have fun with it.

    Martin <><
     
    , Mar 8, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Enda
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    430
  2. Wally
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    371
    Herb Smith
    Apr 15, 2006
  3. Fred

    Re: Long term unemployed starting own business.

    Fred, Jul 29, 2003, in forum: UK Tax Credits and Benefits
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    427
  4. Bob

    Re: Long term unemployed starting own business.

    Bob, Jul 29, 2003, in forum: UK Tax Credits and Benefits
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    424
  5. Bucky

    proving your unemployed whilst not signing on?

    Bucky, Jul 18, 2006, in forum: UK Tax Credits and Benefits
    Replies:
    34
    Views:
    1,704
    anthonyberet
    Jul 29, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page