Deceased mother didn't declare all her savings!

diolch

PeterZ wrote: »

Benefits are different to pensions. If the majority of people on benefits (not pensions!) can save money each week then its obvious they are beign paid too much.

Why should I work 5 days a week and pay tax so that people on benefits can end up with £20k of my money in their bank?

I have no problem with people on pensions being able to save, but benefits are a different matter. You should think before you spout such c r a p!!

If I go along with that, how are you going to distinguish between the claimants that can save and live a frugal life as against those that spend every penny that comes in?

Mind you I can see your answer. All claimants every year must account on how they have spent their money. Put a bit aside, right we will have that back. What about the druggies and alchies, they spend their money on illegal substances. Would you stop their money because of where it was spent?

I don't know what world you live in but I just can't see one pensioner family who spends every penny being told that they are being paid too much because some pensioners down the road are managing to save half of what they are getting.

Or maybe you would consider that there should be no fixed amount paid. Everyone should put in for what they need - maybe food stamps, electric and gas cards (mind you God help those that are seen to be using too much electricty or gas!)

diolch

margaretclare wrote: »

I never said we were on means-tested benefits and your post did not imply that to be the case. You wrote 'a couple aged 70 could easily live on £100 a week'. You didn't add 'if they are on means-tested benefits, run no car, never have a holiday' but prefer to save to leave money behind'. From your reply, that is what you assume and what you think we should do.

Spoil my offspring? Why? The surviving ones are doing fine without my assistance. I won't even mention the total silence from them when it comes to Christmas, birthdays and any other day in the year.

I already 'help my grandchildren get on in the world' as and when I can, giving them help when they need it rather than having to wait until I'm dead. DH's family are already doing fine and need no help from us. He is justly proud of the 2 granddaughters with scholarships to public school. We help when required, looking after their little dog when they go on ski-ing holidays.

I have no bus pass. DH could not use a bus pass because the bus stop is too far away and it is painful for him. Having a car is our choice and enables us to live as we want to live. We'd be housebound without it.

We're not rich but neither are we poor. We don't have to live on means-tested benefits. I grew up in the direst poverty and have no wish to return to that state of affairs. Everyone around us was poor when I was growing up, and they still managed to look down on and sneer at my unmarried mum and me. Not any more.

No, we could not cut the food bill down any further than it is. We shop very carefully, but food costs what it costs, and it costs more than it did a year ago. The cost of transport is a factor in increased food costs. In fact, without a car we shouldn't even be able to get to the shops! So do not talk silly to me about how little we could live on, just so that we could 'spoil the offspring and leave a little when we go'.

Well from the attitude you have to life, and the information about your personal living standards, I can't see why you even bother to get involved in these discussions. You are clearly out of touch with the reality of what life is like on benefits, and have no conception of how people are having to manage on such small amounts of income.

I would have thought that you would be far better placed to be on the forum of 'Horse & Hounds' or maybe 'My Lady'.

diolch

margaretclare wrote: »

Diolch specifically mentioned 'a couple in their 70s'.

When DH and I were in our 50s we were still working.

Were you?

Have you any idea what life is like where no one works in their 50's?

On a personal note, my wife has never worked from when she fell pregnant in 1980. It was my responsibility to provide - my wife's responsibility was the home & children.

diolch

margaretclare wrote: »

I totally agree.

It has been assumed that DH and I, in our 70s, are on means-tested benefits. Far from it. We're still taxpayers!

Paying tax in your 70's!

Gosh, most in that age group on pension or pension credit or both, would see that as being the ultimate in joining the Upper Class!

If you have no empathy or deep feeling for those that exist on very little, never mind paying tax, please don't comment on something you have never experienced in your adult life.

Beltup

PeterZ wrote: »

Your mother did make personal gain from not declaring the savings.

Only your mother will know if it was intentional or not, but one thing is for sure, the DWP dont know and I'll bet they hear "It was a mistake" all day long.

I'm afraid that when the state are involved (benefits and tax) ignorance is not an excuse. It's very harsh and many people fall foul, but unfortunately it has to be that way.

A nice carve up and separation of the opening sentence to make a point;) Fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain.
I proffer the suggestion that only mother knows if it was intentional and only mother knows if that intent was personal. That she didn't spend the money on herself is proof enough that it wasn't and don't forget, I knew her, you didn't.:mad:

margaretclare

diolch wrote: »

Paying tax in your 70's!

Gosh, most in that age group on pension or pension credit or both, would see that as being the ultimate in joining the Upper Class!

If you have no empathy or deep feeling for those that exist on very little, never mind paying tax, please don't comment on something you have never experienced in your adult life.

Never experienced in my adult life.

You don't know what you're talking about.

My first husband couldn't work because of heart disease from 1975 to his death aged 58 in 1992. His death coincided with my redundancy and I was left with a mortgage to pay. Existing on very little and trying to keep a roof above my head - scratching for a living, doing menial jobs far below my qualifications - I had 5 years of that. Only when DH and I got together and began to pool our resources did things start to improve. We both worked until we were 67 albeit in jobs that were different from our earlier careers. He worked in a call-centre, I did IT admin agency work.

You don't have to be VERY rich to be still paying tax in retirement!! We are nowhere near rich, but also, we're a long way from being poor. I am not about to be made to feel guilty because we still drive and still get out and about a bit. We don't go on cruises or some of the things I hear of older people doing - we live simply but comfortably. Quite honestly, some of the women I know who retired on very little made the wrong choices in earlier life. I know of some who laughed at me for paying into the NHS pension scheme and paying full NICs. They could have done the same but chose not to. I know for a fact that they are not laughing now.

The reason I made those choices was because of growing up in poverty - the kind of poverty that no one experiences now because there were no benefits. I was taught to save from a very young age by people who knew the value of saving although they themselves had very little to save on. My grandad couldn't pay for my granny's funeral in 1938 and he growled to my mother 'Get that bairn insured'. Children could and did die in those days, from diseases that aren't heard of now. It was the biggest humiliation for him to have to pay for his wife's funeral as and when he could afford it.

Marisco

diolch wrote: »

Paying tax in your 70's!

Gosh, most in that age group on pension or pension credit or both, would see that as being the ultimate in joining the Upper Class!

If you have no empathy or deep feeling for those that exist on very little, never mind paying tax, please don't comment on something you have never experienced in your adult life.

Don't be so ridiculous!!! My oh pays tax because he has a small "works" pension. And yes, I DO know what it's like trying to survive on benefits, I had tofor a few months years ago, and it's very difficult!! That is why I'm a firm believer in if you can afford to pay, then do so, to "free up" money for those who have nowt!!

diolch

This isn't quite true, Kim. Couples JSA is £100ish, yes - but implicit in the benefits system is that people can't really live on this on a permanent basis. This is why disability benefit and pension credit rates are higher. Implicit in the couples JSA amount is that it is intended to tide people over, providing bare necessities only, for a temporary crisis period (joblessness) in their lives.

Whilst I would agree with you as regards what JSA was intended for, unfortunately in today's world, jobs are not easily come by. The number of claimants that are classified as 'long term unemployed' has reached over 600,000 out of a total of 2.5 million (over 25%!) Those people are having to live on the couples rate of just over £100. There is very little hope for them. Yes they are permanently living on temporary relief payments, yet they manage!

People on permanent set incomes - the retired and the disabled - who are not expected to work, get more. This is because the underlying expenses of ongoing life - home maintenance, replacing clothes, yadda - aren't do-able on £100 a week for couple for ever 'n ever 'n ever.

Again I would agree with you in the reasoning behind Pension Credit. But given that the retirement age has been abolished and you are now expected to work until 65+, why then are couples where one of them who is aged just 61 and the other possibly 55 being given those payments of over £200?

Beltup

PeterZ wrote: »

You say that you have no problem paying the money back, but it sounds to me like you are looking for reasons not to - just my opinion.

Tax avoidance is perfectly legal and people do it all the time. I'll bet that you have done it yourself at some point, most people have. This very website has a section all about tax avoidence:

Take a look at some of the posts there, its full of people looking to avoid tax.

If there are legal reasons for not paying the money back then of course that's an option worth exploring in much the same way as Tax avoidance is worth exploring. (Hows that for thinking outside the box on a Money Saving Website?;))
In the grand scheme of things this is only money, 0's on a bit of paper as far as i'm concerned an irrelevance when set against the dissapointment my mother would be feeling if she had for one second believed that her action, or inaction would create a fuss.

The fact is that when opening this thread I had no knowledge of the system whatsoever and that others assumed otherwise has seen this thread take a defensive, aggressive approach.

diolch

Marisco wrote: »

Don't be so ridiculous!!! My oh pays tax because he has a small "works" pension. And yes, I DO know what it's like trying to survive on benefits, I had tofor a few months years ago, and it's very difficult!! That is why I'm a firm believer in if you can afford to pay, then do so, to "free up" money for those who have nowt!!

In which case he must be receiving taxable income - not including any benefits, of over £182 per week for a single peron. A fortune to some considering that the amount you actually need is £132 per week!