Extra £4bn welfare cut

IveSeenTheLight

olly300 wrote: »

Well you are lucky for not knowing

You should look into the detail for the NAtional Scheme insurance policy.
In my mind it's not worth it, especially as I am outiwth the criteria

Bereavment Allowance

You may be able to claim Bereavement Allowance if all of the following apply:

• you're a widow, widower or surviving civil partner aged 45 or over when your husband, wife or civil partner died
• you're not bringing up children
• you're under State Pension age
• your late husband, wife or civil partner paid National Insurance contributions (NICs), or they died as a result of an industrial accident or disease

As I'm under 45 and also bringing up children, that disqualifies me from the bereavement allowance.

Bereavement Payment

Who can claim

You may be able to claim Bereavement Payment if your husband, wife or civil partner had paid their National Insurance contributions (NICs) or their death was caused by their job and either:

• you were under State Pension age when they died
• your husband, wife or civil partner was not entitled to Category A state Retirement Benefit when they died.

How much do you get
The £2,000 payment is a one-off tax-free lump sum.

I've already made arrangements to cater for my family if my wife or I die. No need to double dip the necessaties.

IveSeenTheLight

olly300 wrote: »

Private companies run schemes for profit. Therefore a fat percentage of the scheme would go into their pockets whether you claimed for it or not.

As lots of the money is used to pay present day pensioners pensions , would you like to never claim and find out when you retired, that some company has taken 20% of all the money you "saved"?

There are many options available.
I too am not enamoured with pensions and what they will end up paying out.
My suggestion could simply be an ISA or a savings account that has limited withdrawels only if unemployed or retired.
I'm not saying it has definately got to be invested in a pension scheme.

LydiaJ

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

In my mind it's not worth it, especially as I am outiwth the criteria

Bereavment Allowance
As I'm under 45 and also bringing up children, that disqualifies me from the bereavement allowance.

That's because bereavement allowance is an alternative to widowed parent's allowance, except that it only lasts a year whereas WPA lasts until the children have all grown up. Naturally they don't let you claim for both at the same time - hence you can't get bereavement allowance if you're bringing up children. Both of them are contributions-based, so depend on the NI contibutions made by your deceased partner (and I assume HRP, although that wasn't relevant in my case so I'm not sure). It's designed to give the newly widowed person a financial cushion while they concentrate on grief, so that they have time to sort out their new financial circumstances instead of being unable to afford the roof over their head immediately.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Bereavement Payment
I've already made arrangements to cater for my family if my wife or I die. No need to double dip the necessaties.

Well done. I hope they never become necessary. However, lots of people don't make arrangements. Or they make arrangements that will take time to come into effect. Until you are the person responsible for the admin resulting from a death, most people have no idea how complicated it is or how long it can take if it isn't all perfectly straightforward. Bereavement payment is designed to tide people over if there's a delay before they can get at the money that should come to them from other sources.

It's 10 months since late-nearly-ex died. There are complications with his estate that mean that several thousand pounds that is due to be paid by an insurance company can't be claimed until after some very time consuming legal stuff has happened. The estate therefore can't be wound up yet, and I haven't received any money from it. As it happens, I'm OK financially because he and I had made our own arrangements. However, other widow(er)s aren't so fortunate.

The Guardian has a useful list of welfare costs by category (link). Bereavement benefits, while not the smallest, are pretty small compared with the big items. In any case "bereavement benefits" will consist mostly of WPA, with BP and BA a much smaller share. Given the regularity with which many posters on here say they don't mean widow(er)s when they advocate withdrawing benefits from lone parents, and many other posters go on about making benefits primarily available for those who've paid into the system, I don't suppose there would be much support for axing contributions-based WPA. (Of course, the country's broke, so if WPA is decreased, then I'm willing to take my share of the pain along with the rest of the nation. I just don't think it's an obvious candidate for axing completely.)

The_Guardian wrote:

Benefits in £m (I've put items over £10bn in red)
HMRC: Child benefit 11200
HMRC: Tax credits 23700
Income support and jobseeker's allowance - child elements 1005
Widow's/bereavement benefits 596
Invalidity/Incapacity benefit 6242
Employment and support allowance - contribution based 660
Unemployment benefit/jobseeker's allowance - contribution based 1079
Maternity allowance 353
Statutory maternity pay 1824
Statutory sick pay 65
Industrial injuries benefits 865
New Deal allowances and credits, and job grant 158
Non-contributory Christmas bonus 33
Severe disablement allowance 702
Employment and support allowance - income based 718
Income support - adult elements 7500
Jobseeker's allowance (income-based) - adult elements 3744
Return to work and in-work credits 135
Social fund 827
Housing benefit and discretionary housing payments 14244
Community charge/council tax benefit 2487
Additional expenditure on housing benefit 276
Additional expenditure on council tax benefit 62
Disability living allowance 7679
Invalid care allowance/carer's allowance 1539
Total 87693

marklv

The obvious one to cut is child benefit. Make it available for the first child only, then zero for any others. At least will discourage the poorer elements of society from breeding happily without any thoughts about the consequences.

Shakethedisease

At least will discourage the poorer elements of society from breeding happily without any thoughts about the consequences.

I don't think there is any historical precedence for this ? Ever ?
Not even in the last 40 years when family planning and abortions were legalised.

What on earth makes you think it'll happen now ??

Sorry but taking away a tenner a week is unlikely to discourage anyone from 'breeding'. Horrible phraseology as well.. these are humans you're talking about, not animals !! Where does this constant 'breeding' sh-i-te come from ? Think about what your saying instead of blindly parroting what 'everyone' else is saying on 't-internet'. You are NOT talking about vermin, but about humans.
If you really, really do feel these people are somehow 'less' than that and can't bring yourself to think of them 'having children' like the rest of society do.. then go and read up about where that leads any society when it starts thinking of a particular group as 'less than human' and 'breeding' like animals.

Those that are working have the most to lose when they have children, regarding loss of income and/or mortgage to pay based on two incomes. Those at the bottom have nothing to lose. And certainly 'threats' of losing a tenner a week aren't going to discourage them. The system is wrong and needs corrected badly. But not at this hateful and 'persecution-like' cost.

It's those with the mortgages or high rents to pay while working that lose out having the kids.

Perhaps making it worthwhile for those working and trying to make their way in the world financially, so that they don't feel they can't have children because it'll lose them their home, or be too much financially in child-care costs ?... might be a far better attitude to take ? The rest is just 'anger' at some vague 'group' having what you, ( not you personally ), perceive you can't.

But historically, poverty, never has been any sort of barrier to having big families. And it doesn't mean they don't love their kids either btw. You should never dare to presume that.

IveSeenTheLight

LydiaJ wrote: »

That's because bereavement allowance is an alternative to widowed parent's allowance, except that it only lasts a year whereas WPA lasts until the children have all grown up. Naturally they don't let you claim for both at the same time - hence you can't get bereavement allowance if you're bringing up children. Both of them are contributions-based, so depend on the NI contibutions made by your deceased partner (and I assume HRP, although that wasn't relevant in my case so I'm not sure). It's designed to give the newly widowed person a financial cushion while they concentrate on grief, so that they have time to sort out their new financial circumstances instead of being unable to afford the roof over their head immediately.

Hence why if I had a choice, I wouldn;t be paying for bereavement allowance in my circumstance.
I'm paying for something I will not use at this time (actually I'm paying to cover others).

LydiaJ wrote: »

Well done. I hope they never become necessary. However, lots of people don't make arrangements. Or they make arrangements that will take time to come into effect. Until you are the person responsible for the admin resulting from a death, most people have no idea how complicated it is or how long it can take if it isn't all perfectly straightforward. Bereavement payment is designed to tide people over if there's a delay before they can get at the money that should come to them from other sources.

I have been through the process before (well helped out close family members) which is why I made provision to cover.

365days

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I don't think there is any historical precedence for this ? Ever ?
Not even in the last 40 years when family planning and abortions were legalised.

What on earth makes you think it'll happen now ??

Sorry but taking away a tenner a week is unlikely to discourage anyone from 'breeding'. Horrible phraseology as well.. these are humans you're talking about, not animals !! Where does this constant 'breeding' sh-i-te come from ? Think about what your saying instead of blindly parroting what 'everyone' else is saying on 't-internet'. You are NOT talking about vermin, but about humans.
If you really, really do feel these people are somehow 'less' than that and can't bring yourself to think of them 'having children' like the rest of society do.. then go and read up about where that leads any society when it starts thinking of a particular group as 'less than human' and 'breeding' like animals.

Those that are working have the most to lose when they have children, regarding loss of income and/or mortgage to pay based on two incomes. Those at the bottom have nothing to lose. And certainly 'threats' of losing a tenner a week aren't going to discourage them. The system is wrong and needs corrected badly. But not at this hateful and 'persecution-like' cost.

It's those with the mortgages or high rents to pay while working that lose out having the kids.

Perhaps making it worthwhile for those working and trying to make their way in the world financially, so that they don't feel they can't have children because it'll lose them their home, or be too much financially in child-care costs ?... might be a far better attitude to take ? The rest is just 'anger' at some vague 'group' having what you, ( not you personally ), perceive you can't.

But historically, poverty, never has been any sort of barrier to having big families. And it doesn't mean they don't love their kids either btw. You should never dare to presume that.

I can see your point. However, it is more than £10 a week. Child benefit alone is £13 and each extra child means more tax credits too.

Just imagine you are a single mum of 3. You have no qualifications and have never worked. You are now 29 and your eldest is about to hit the age where you no longer are entitled to income support and will have to go on to JSA.

You have a 3 choices. Carry on as you are with your benefits falling and the added inconvenience of having to go to the job centre every fortnight instead of every 6 months.

Deciede that you want to go back to work. Realise that all you will be able to get is a minimum wage job, and after you have paid out for some of your rent, petrol/travel, childcare, school meals, uniform etc etc (which you previously got free) you will be £5 a week better off.

Or you could just think.....Hmmm if I have another baby I am 'safe' for another 7 years, and I might even get a bigger house.

There has to be a way forward to make option 2 more appealing and option 3 not possible.

Shakethedisease

There has to be a way forward to make option 2 more appealing and option 3 not possible.

I somehow doubt the condem policy of getting them 'back to work' when the youngest child is 5 is going to help too much there.

I can wipe out most of the financial hardship over going back to work as a single parent of 3 with 2 simple answers.

Deciede that you want to go back to work. Realise that all you will be able to get is a minimum wage job, and after you have paid out for some of your rent, petrol/travel, childcare, school meals, uniform etc etc (which you previously got free) you will be £5 a week better off.

1) Much cheaper and widely available childcare.

2) Much cheaper rent.

There, that's solved all the problems in 2 strokes hasn't it ? So there's your answers to making 'choice 3' much more unattractive.

No problems with the childcare, no problems keeping a roof over one's head and no problems thus, getting out there job hunting, doing part-time or full-time work, or even training for something better.

It would also make those currently in work and feel they can't 'afford' children at present on a completely different playing field. Winner all round !

Now that I've put the world to rights in 2 short sentences, am off to get my dinner.:)

flashnazia

365days wrote: »

I can see your point. However, it is more than £10 a week. Child benefit alone is £13 and each extra child means more tax credits too.

Just imagine you are a single mum of 3. You have no qualifications and have never worked. You are now 29 and your eldest is about to hit the age where you no longer are entitled to income support and will have to go on to JSA.

You have a 3 choices. Carry on as you are with your benefits falling and the added inconvenience of having to go to the job centre every fortnight instead of every 6 months.

Deciede that you want to go back to work. Realise that all you will be able to get is a minimum wage job, and after you have paid out for some of your rent, petrol/travel, childcare, school meals, uniform etc etc (which you previously got free) you will be £5 a week better off.

Or you could just think.....Hmmm if I have another baby I am 'safe' for another 7 years, and I might even get a bigger house.

There has to be a way forward to make option 2 more appealing and option 3 not possible.

This should be post of the day (for being accurate).

SingleSue

365days wrote: »

There has to be a way forward to make option 2 more appealing and option 3 not possible.

There was for me...I had a hysterectomy nearly 10 years ago after number 3 (was still married and working then though) :rotfl:

Sorry, in a very silly mood tonight after seeing an absolutely awful film...it really was pants.