Universal Credit for [merged]

zagfles

SkyeKnight wrote: »

Paying money off the mortgage is definitely normally considered deprivation of capital, but I do that regularly and it does tend to keep my savings under the £6k limit - but not to claim benefits obviously. I think Sixer may be right and it will be too complicated to claim UC (which may be the purpose anyway).

Making regular payments to your mortgage, eg overpaying by £500 a month, is not deprivation of capital. It might be if you came into a large amount (over £6k) and used that to pay down your mortgage, but making regular small payments isn't.

Deprivation is where you have the capital in the first place, if you deliberately don't build up any capital in the first place (eg by overpaying your mortgage instead of saving) there is nothing to stop you claiming benefits if you're otherwise entitled.

Mortgages where you can withdraw overpayments are good for this, though don't think it'd apply to "offset" type accounts.

BigAunty

SkyeKnight wrote: »

I don't understand the deprivation of capital rules (hence the questions), but it's definitely not just about blatantly spending hundreds of thousands of pounds.

DofC rules are complex and a lot of the responses given on the threads on MSE sound like guff to me, rarely quoting the actual rules. Go and find the DWP and HMRC decision makers guides online and read them to get a good overview. These are the staff manuals so they provide clear examples of what is deprivation, how the staff have to prove it.

BigAunty

anniemac1973 wrote: »

Hi totally new to this so sorry if this question has already been asked.I currently work 16 hours per week as a teaching assistant(Term time only).I have a husband who currently recieves DLA(how long for is anyones guess after all hes only been getting it 16 years).We have 3 children all over 13.Is this right what im hearing that i will lose my WTC or have to increase my hours to 24? Im rather confused as i thought WTC was to encourage people off benefits and into work not the other way round.I wont be able to increase my hours so will be left either with the choice of packing work in(which i dont want to do)or be worse off.

By the time UC is full implemented, I imagine your adolescent children will be adults!

quintwins

BigAunty wrote: »

By the time UC is full implemented, I imagine your adolescent children will be adults!

someone said this to me a few days ago. that it could be years, however we don't know where we'll be placed on that list and could be on uc within 2 years, and if i was then to receive a large amount of money that would be a big enough change in circumstances that i would lose my protection, i do feel like it's people that save that suffer.


how is it fair that i can overpay my mortgage every month but can't use inheritance to pay it off completely? and i wouldn't wanna take the chance that they won't notice because so many people are claiming.

BigAunty

quintwins wrote: »

someone said this to me a few days ago. that it could be years, however we don't know where we'll be placed on that list and could be on uc within 2 years, and if i was then to receive a large amount of money that would be a big enough change in circumstances that i would lose my protection, i do feel like it's people that save that suffer.


how is it fair that i can overpay my mortgage every month but can't use inheritance to pay it off completely? and i wouldn't wanna take the chance that they won't notice because so many people are claiming.

You are comparing apples with pears. My response was to a woman worried how she will increase her working week under the new tax credits rule for couples, expecting them to increase their working hours from 16 to 24 hours a week.

She has a husband with disabilities and 3 teenage children who should be able to help around the house and some caring responsibilies now, thus helping her to increase her hours from more than 2 days a week during term times only. Chances are her children will be adults when it is fully implemented so this should be a great help with regards to finding more hours or moving to a full time job, or moving onto carers allowance instead if her husband needs significant care.

But now you come to mention it, what's wrong with people using their savings to pay for their living expenses rather than expecting the public purse to pay for basic things while they prop up their capital?

quintwins

BigAunty wrote: »

But now you come to mention it, what's wrong with people using their savings to pay for their living expenses rather than expecting the public purse to pay for basic things while they prop up their capital?

absolutely nothing, but why should i live a frugal lifestyle with the aim of owning my own home, when my someone else in my position who spends on holidays/beer/fags/ a new car/ fancy appliances.....ect will be better off.

whats the point in saving if you then have to spend it all on day to day expenses, it makes more sense to have a higer lifestyle and waste every penny like so many do already...running the risk of getting into debt with no buffer to fall back on

We're not acually due any inheritence it is my mother in laws, mothers, yet they want to help us by if we're going to lose money, ther better keeping it and we will continue with our orginal plan of savings and paying down our mortgage then selling up and building with the procedes, why is it ok for me to live in a mobile home for years slowly building a house, but not for my inlaws to give me money to do it?

just for the record my hubby works and pays tax, we get child tax credits, working tax credits and child benefit, i don't work because childcare would be a nightmare and our twins require alot of appointments, if i was to work my kids would suffer- we have discussed it and if it comes to it and universal credits is that bad we will cancel our claim rather than our kids lose out when they clear need that bit of extra support and stuggle threw until we are in a position that i can work.


i just think it's unfair that savers get punished, if i were to save up to gop to go on holiday for example i could get in trouble, but if i just went and booked it and paid it off each month it would be fine, yet the out come is the same except for the fact that paying it off over time is likely to cost me more, the same as if i overpay my mortgage thats fine but i do it in a lump sum and i get into trouble...wheres the logic in that?

MissMoneypenny

quintwins wrote: »

absolutely nothing, but why should i live a frugal lifestyle with the aim of owning my own home, when my someone else in my position who spends on holidays/beer/fags/ a new car/ fancy appliances.....ect will be better off.



just for the record my hubby works and pays tax, we get child tax credits, working tax credits and child benefit, i don't work because childcare would be a nightmare and our twins require alot of appointments, if i was to work my kids would suffer-



i just think it's unfair that savers get punished

If we are talking about fairness: why is it fair that in some couples, both work to keep their own children or work and don't have children, yet you are expecting these same people to keep your children too by giving you all those welfare payments you listed above?

The welfare state is not there to boost peoples savings; it should be there to help those in need. Those with capital can use that to support their own family; or work to support themselves if they don't want to deplete their capital.

quintwins

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

If we are talking about fairness: why is it fair that in some couples, both work to keep their own children or work and don't have children, yet you are expecting these same people to keep your children too by giving you all those welfare payments you listed above?

The welfare state is not there to boost peoples savings; it should be there to help those in need. Those with capital can use that to support their own family; or work to support themselves if they don't want to deplete their capital.

my husband does work to support our children, we pay have both paid taxs and are entitled so why should we not claim? tax credits brackets are very high so most people get something anyway, it's not like we're trying to fiddle the tax payer or popping out more kids to get more money.

my children need me at home, schools here are different and my oldest 2 are only in til 1, then i have speech therapy x2, physio, and ocupational therapy x2 every week aswell as child psychologist and pediatrics appointments, my hubby regularly starts early or works last so night shift wouldn't work, i already pull in all the help i can from family members to look after my other kids when i'm running to all these appointments and most of my family work anyway, childcare for 3 kids during the day is too high and the only choice for my youngest would be a childminder as we don't have play groups here, even if working was an option. like i said we can survive without the tax credits we get and if we weren't entitles we would but why should we be punished just for being careful with money

sosad1968

Can I just raise a different issue with regard to Universal Credit?

I have heard that childrens' savings will be taken into account when calculating the £16000 threshhold.

Does anyone know if this is true?

This seems remarkably unfair to children - but maybe it is to discourage people saving their own money in their childrens' names?

Mortabrey

Does anyone know acurate information about the upcoming universal credit?

Will it be £500 a week per household and is that really to include everything?

It would be great to have some answer's.