would i be ripping offf the state?

heyhumm

This whole affair where what you have in savings affects your benefits angers me.

It preys on the people who like to save and NOT SPEND MONEY :-(

So if I have a 6k car that's ok? It's crazy! And let's face it, it's not 6k before it affects anything, it's 3k.

Having +10k in the bank these days is normal if you're saving for the deposit for a house. And guess who's fault that is.

Also correct me if I'm wrong but don't they consider credit card debt as funds in an ISA savings as well, even if it's just earning interest?

manhattan

c_smith wrote:

It's a bloody joke, just like everything in this country. They encourage you to save, but what incentive do you have?

You go without now to save up some money for your future, but then you lose your job and you need to use the money you've saved to live on .......... once it's all gone you then qualify for income support.

On the other hand, you've got someone who was earning the same as you but spending it as quick as they were making it. When they lose their job they qualify for Income Support right away.

And then you've got the lazy barstewards who've never worked a day in their lives who qualify for EVERYTHING because they know how to work the system.

it certainly is a joke!

the only real option is to get any 16 hour+ part time job and claim ftc and wtc your savings wont affect a claim on these.

maybe the safest place for you to save is under the mattress?

Jet

Isn't this site all about making your money work in the best way possible and not about "throwing it away" uneccessarily?

The OP wanted to know if there was a way she could keep her £30k legitimately. I don't see what is wrong in asking that anymore than asking about loopholes on buying BOGOFS in Tesco! The principle is the same.

If she had 30k equity in the property she was living in and was claiming benefits, no-one would bat an eye lid.

£30k in the bank or £30k tied up in property. There's no difference as far as I'm concerned.

Scarlett1

Jet wrote:

If she had 30k equity in the property she was living in and was claiming benefits, no-one would bat an eye lid.

£30k in the bank or £30k tied up in property. There's no difference as far as I'm concerned.

£30,000 in equity isnt the same as having £30,000 in the bank, once she has the money in the bank she isnt entitled to benefits until it falls below a certain level, its not the members on this board who made the rules its the government

Jet

Yes, I know it's the government who makes the rules and I understand how it works.

This thread just got me thinking that it seems a bit daft to me really.

The point I was trying to make is that if someone had chosen to live at home / in a tent / caravan etc. etc. and chosen to save £30k in the bank and then later in their life, their circumstances changed and they wanted to claim benefits, they would be penalised by the government but somebody with £30k in equity which could be released by selling the property is treated differently.

Scarlett1

Jet wrote:

Yes, I know it's the government who makes the rules and I understand how it works.

This thread just got me thinking that it seems a bit daft to me really.

The point I was trying to make is that if someone had chosen to live at home / in a tent / caravan etc. etc. and chosen to save £30k in the bank and then later in their life, their circumstances changed and they wanted to claim benefits, they would be penalised by the government but somebody with £30k in equity which could be released by selling the property is treated differently.

yes I understand, its also like the scheme that is supposed to encourage benefit claimants to save, but then if they go over the savings limit money gets taken off their benefit or their benefits suspended

jooles5a

Hi
ANYTHING that can be cashed in and spent is classed as capital for means tested/income based benefits which includes Premium Bonds and other types of investments and I'm afraid this goes for cash under the mattress too (although they'd have no right to check there).
The £6000-£16000 rule is correct as is the 'deprivation' of capital rule which is applied not only when the money's been spent in a seemingly frivolous way but also if you give it away. If the decision makers at the Social deem you to have deprived yourself of the lolly, they'll treat you as still having it so you'd be no better off benefits wise and you'd no longer have the cash too.
The other thing to mention is that gov't departments do check details with one another - down to the tax office even supplying details of how much tax has been paid on interest earned in a/cs. They do some sort of backward calculation and come up with an approximate figure for your balance at the time the interest was earned. You don't even have to already be under investigation for this type of check - they and others like them are a matter of routine.
Sorry for not supplying any suggestions as to how to invest your money but whatever you do end up doing, make sure you tell everyone paying you benefits what's happening so you don't have any trouble in the future.
Finally, my advice is to not try to bend the rules even slightly - the benefits system is there for those without the means to help themselves and those that help themselves and de-fraud will more than likely get caught - if you don't trip yourself up by forgetting what you have/haven't declared, jealousy will have someone else blabbing about it for you - take it from someone who used to work there.
Hope this helps
Good Luck!!

keith234

thor wrote:

"legitimately defrauding" is this possible?

I agree this is not possible (grammatically at least) but believe me I see thousands of people who are in my opinion defrauding the tax payer, and sometimes thousands of pounds per week.

Chrysalis

Scarlett1 wrote:

but to the benefit system it is, and you would be expected to give yourself a weekly/monthly allowance from that to live on, then when you're savings fall to around the £8,000 mark you can 'sign on' or whatever

call me old fashioned, but I thought benefits were for those who fell on hard times :rolleyes:

Yes but I am talking about if say you already qualified due to hard times you win the lottery which gives you something special for the short term, I think its harsh then for the person to lose all their benefits expect to spend all their winnings only on living costs and then have to reclaim again later.

Scarlett1

Chrysalis wrote:

Yes but I am talking about if say you already qualified due to hard times you win the lottery which gives you something special for the short term, I think its harsh then for the person to lose all their benefits expect to spend all their winnings only on living costs and then have to reclaim again later.

It wouldnt just be IS either, it would be Housing Benefit and Council Tax benefit. You would have to either win a small amout to not effect you're benefits, or win 3 million and set yourself up for life