The recession, benefits, the safety net, and the learning curve

Max_Headroom_3

You're wasting your breath PN, but I appreciate the effort.

Dopester couldn't see the utter idiocy in his "plan" for me if it were pointed out to him a thousand times. :rolleyes:

dopester

PasturesNew wrote: »

Two flaws:
1] If he could get a job, any job, then he'd have more than £60/week to live on and there wouldn't be any hardship
2] Camping/camper van and you go completely off the radar, no address - without an address life just gets harder. Where are your bank statements to go to? Job applications returns?

1] Yes, and lets hope he does.

2] Good point. Was taking it a bit extreme with camper-van, although some manage it. A HMO then, a lodger,.

He's probably put a lot of time/effort/money into getting his house just how he likes it. Any other one just wouldn't be the same and he'd have to spend a lot more time/effort/money knocking it about a little bit.

Not all houses for sale are wrecks. There will be many homes which will have had much money lovingly spent on them, but not keep that extra value spent, in the crash in overall values. As prices fall, even home-owners who are not planning to sell, see the market value of their homes fall. Even ones which have been done up to a high standard.

Overall, to STR would be the wrong thing to do.

Yes it does matter if you've just invested 10-15-20 years of your entire being and soul into building yourself a nice little house you love.

It wasn't about helping home owners, per se, it was about how little a single person, who is a home owner, with no children, gets after a lifetime of contributing.

Your entire being and soul in to making your house you love? Forgive me for seeing a home mostly as a place of comfortable shelter, and not something which completes my life. My horizons and values on life are a bit more expansive than that. Again, there will be many nice houses on the market throughout the crash, including from reluctant sellers who have put much love in to their own property.

Well those are the hard facts aren't they - for how little the safety net pays out for some people? Or were there glory years in the history of the welfare state where they paid a lot more to claimants in similar positions? In the depths of a recession, and public finances as they are, I can't see them paying more.

Part of it is we are each on our own to put aside for harder times (abaxas) - and Max has an asset of value to tap in to, where others have no house, but savings, and claiming no benefits.

LydiaJ

LydiaJ wrote: »

Oh, and finally, CB is a flat rate for everyone, and CTC and WTC are assessed on your income, not your capital. (That's your income for the previous financial year, not the current one, unless it's hugely more.)

fitzmum wrote: »

My husband has been laid off and has to go to 'sign on' next week. Does that mean that they will take into account what he earned last year when calculating any WTC or CTC? How can that be right? We need help NOW - regardless of what he earned LAST year. Its crazy!

Sorry fitzmum. When I typed that I was thinking of PN, who says she can't claim because they want to know her income and her income is too variable.

If you have reason to estimate that this year's income will be less than last year's, you can be assessed on your estimate. Then they do a final calculation after the end of the financial year, and any adjustment is applied to next year's TC.

Oh, and a piece of advice... do NOT deal with the tax credits office by post - it takes forever for them to do anything with what you've sent them. Phone them. If you don't hear anything after a couple of weeks, phone them again.

Hope you get sorted out soon.
Lydia

olly300

lynzpower wrote: »

I agree. I mean, how is the DWP to know exactly when you got laid off/ lost job etc.

Ask your ex-employer or their administrators.

They do this in certain cases anyway.

Max_Headroom_3

dopester wrote: »

Forgive me for seeing a home mostly as a place of comfortable shelter, and not something which completes my life. My horizons and values on life are a bit more expansive than that.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Post of the whole thread that is!! :D:D

All the way through you've gone on and on about the monetary value of houses, how much others have made, how you're going to make a killing this time round, about what an investment they are, how people with houses should be tapping the value of them, who should be selling, who should be buying, how we're all supposed to be maxing out the value, like a stuck record!

And now they're suddenly "mostly a place of comfortable shelter"....!! :rotfl:

That's what I've been saying for the entire thread!!! They're just homes, somewhere to live!

Give me strength!

Max_Headroom_3

Originally Posted by Max Headroom

As for the rest, it's not rocket science to simply action the claim from the date given, just requires the entry of a different number on their computer.

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

You're forgetting the fact that one of the conditions for claiming JSAis that you're available and actively seeking work. This is a bit difficult to prove retrospectively.

Sorry OBW, I missed answering this, remiss of me.

They don't actually ask for anything to be proven. How much savings I've got, what jobs I've applied for, whether or not I'm available for work. They don't ask for proof of any of it.

So where's the difference? I told them when I finished work and I can prove it if they really wanted me to very easily, so really it's no big deal.

Just more fool me for not sticking my hand out at the earliest opportunity, shan't make that mistake again, in future I shall claim irrespective of whether I think I'll need it or not.

Seems an odd premise to want to encourage though.

Oldernotwiser

i8change wrote: »

Benefits are temporary in some countries, this is from a Spanish forum (friends over there have said the same) You rely on family after that!:-

http://www.seg-social.es/Internet_6/Trabajadores/PrestacionesPension10935/index.htm
.

Frequently temporary and only for those who've been working for some time (5 years is common).

Very relevant to this discussion is the fact that in many countries, the value of any property is taken into account when assessing eligibility.

Oldernotwiser

Max_Headroom wrote: »

They don't actually ask for anything to be proven. How much savings I've got, what jobs I've applied for, whether or not I'm available for work. They don't ask for proof of any of it.

They don't ask for proof in the absolute way you mean it, but you do have to attend regularly with details of what your job seeking activities have been. That's not the case if you go in and say that you lost your job 2 months ago and now you'd like your backdated money. You could've been doing anything in that period, for all they know.

dopester

Max_Headroom wrote: »

And now they're suddenly "mostly a place of comfortable shelter"....!! :rotfl:

That's what I've been saying for the entire thread!!! They're just homes, somewhere to live!

Yes, but they have been treated by others, including lenders, as an investment.

During the peak, property values and land values rose to an incredible peak, because of those active in the market being prepared to pay more for available property in previous months and years.

That effect pushes up values for all existing owners. Some of whom may have seen their home treble or more in value, despite doing little except for some wallpapering and laying a new carpet over 10 years.

So whilst of course I want a comfortable shelter of my own in a nice area, I'm not prepared to pay a bubble investment type price. Equally I see no harm in asking others to consider selling at a higher "investment" price than their property may be worth in the future, given the scope of the economic problems we've got.

With a property with an approximate value of £150K, if you STR'd at somewhere around £125K, and were prepared to cut back on spending, I think of you being this happy in a few years with the decision.
http://daylife.sky.com/imageserve/04Ha3zF3VP03L/610x.jpg

However I could be wrong (but I doubt it), know the daunting risks involved, and it would require quite a bit of lifestyle downsizing.

fitzmum

abaxas wrote: »

What is more 'crazy' is that you expect to be helped. Why not save for a rainy day? Lots of other countries manage without our benefits systems and people survive.

Oops, I forgot it's old fashioned to be sensible and forward looking.

I think you'll find that after 23 years of my husband continuously working and contributing towards this country (and the lazy people that have sat on their rear ends and have never worked) in the form of taxes, along with myself having worked for 18 years doing the same, now that we find ourselves with 2 small children and the loss of the main breadwinner's salary its a little galling to say the least when you find that when you need the help yourself its simply not there.

This country rewards the very people who do the least work. No wonder the place is going to the dogs.

And yes, we do have savings - that took a long time of scrimping & saving to build up. And now will be spent to live as MSE a life as we can, whilst others who have never worked have enough cash to holiday, drink, smoke, drive fast cars etc. That's what I find crazy.