how to get rid of your savings so you can get council tax benifits

margaretclare

duchy wrote: »

What principles do you think the NHS and benefits system were built on in the first place ?
Dave and his buddies would like to demolish it -Britain's version of socialism would be considered rampantly Tory sixty years ago-now it leans to the left but is still right of centre so yes I stand by what I said The benefits system needs a complete overhaul-it needs to support those who cannot support themselves genuinely and needs to stop pandering to those who don't want to make any effort for themselves. It should be seen as a top up for those in real need and a short term solution for those in difficulties not a lifestyle.

I agree with you on that.

Frank Field MP is about the only current politician that I have much time for. He was asked by a previous (NewLab) PM some years ago to 'think the unthinkable' in terms of the welfare state. He did so, but whatever conclusions he came to have never reached public consciousness - certainly, the then ruling politicians sank them without trace.

But according to what you say, the OP and his MIL are not looking for a 'top-up in real need' because MIL, although she has to pay rent, is NOT in 'real need'. She has all this amount of money from house sale (actual amount undisclosed) which could, according to people who know, like jamesd, be invested to give her a comfortable lifestyle. She is not in difficulties, and it is more of a 'lifestyle choice' that the OP has proposed for her.

bobthedambuilder

margaretclare wrote: »

Frank Field MP is about the only current politician that I have much time for.

I would definitely second that.

He seems to have become lower profile now - I suspect beaten down by the system. But we could do with another 500 like him in that London, instead of the posturing, publicity seeking, power hungry prats that are there now. (How about that for alliteration?:D)

margaretclare

bobthedambuilder wrote: »

I would definitely second that.

He seems to have become lower profile now - I suspect beaten down by the system. But we could do with another 500 like him in that London, instead of the posturing, publicity seeking, power hungry prats that are there now. (How about that for alliteration?:D)

I heard him being interviewed, along with Polly Toynbee, this morning on Radio 4. As it was milliseconds before 9 am, I don't think he really managed to get his point across.

Robin Tilbrook, English Democrats candidate for London Mayor?

dzug1

morganedge wrote: »

If you dont save, you'll get everything paid for you anyway, lol.

.

In exchange for handing over everything you have. You are only allowed to 'keep' a nominal weekly sum for pocket money. That won't go far with extras such as haircuts, papers, a TV of your own, etc

le_loup

kolofarthos wrote: »

Shame few people actually answered your question but chose to moralise.
<snip>
3. Annual gifts of (figures might be out of date a bit) of £250 per person and one lump sum of £3K per annum

Almost as bad as people giving nonsense advice!
The above is to do with IHT.
If you don't know, don't pontificate.

bodmil

I'm confused as to why she has been allowed straight into a council house. I thought they were for those who would otherwise be homeless?

bobthedambuilder

kolofarthos wrote: »

Shame few people actually answered your question but chose to moralise. Several options for her:
1. spend it all (many ways described) and enjoy whilst she does and risk poverty later in life (no guarantee benefits will still be there!).
2. give 'the lot' to charity (with above risks)
3. Annual gifts of (figures might be out of date a bit) of £250 per person and one lump sum of £3K per annum ( and eventually the above risks)
<skip>
My biggest grouse on the benefits system is for those who fall into the trap of doing what is best for themselves, not relying on benefits, working and scrimping and saving and then find they just miss out with the person next door being hundreds of pounds better off having not lifted a finger to help themselves except spend it all asap!

The OP bailed out of this discussion 2 days ago after being told numerable times that what she was implying (to have her mother run down her savings to less than 16K in order to claim benefits like her neighbour) was illegal, not to say immoral.

How do you get to your "person next door" being "hundreds of pounds better off"? Surely in the OP's scenario, her mother is thousands of pounds better off? Rightly or wrongly, justified or otherwise, benefits are paid to people who have nothing themselves, however they came to that situation (and discounting the fraudsters, before somebody brings that up). The person next door doesn't get any money for being penniless, he gets a reduced rent, and that's not being hundreds of pounds better off.

anselld

kolofarthos wrote: »

Shame few people actually answered your question but chose to moralise. Several options for her:
1. spend it all (many ways described) and enjoy whilst she does and risk poverty later in life (no guarantee benefits will still be there!).
2. give 'the lot' to charity (with above risks)
3. Annual gifts of (figures might be out of date a bit) of £250 per person and one lump sum of £3K per annum ( and eventually the above risks)

Above are all illegal if done to deprive assets in order to claim benefit.

or perhaps the best if the sum is large, ignore the issue invest have extra income (and she can give gifts out of this income too) still have the capital for a rainy day or to leave to beneficiaries.

That is OK if not claiming benefits, but has already been suggested.

It seems you have read the moralising but not the answers!

brasso

duchy wrote: »

The thing is that ten years ago this question would never have got asked on a large public forum -it would hve been considered a shameful question but the whole mentality has changed and seemingly decent and respectable people are now asking openly (not saying they wouldn't have asked before but they'd be asking in a shadier enviroment).

The welfare state needs a complete overhaul but we need to get rid of the ConDems FIRST- IMO- as it would need to be replanned with socialist principles to the forefront not the banker's buddy mentality.

I was with you there for a moment -- then I got to the second paragraph. Or rather the "socialist principles" bit.

Been there, done that, even got the idealistic teeshirt -- which is full of holes.

rpc

margaretclare wrote: »

Frank Field MP is about the only current politician that I have much time for. He was asked by a previous (NewLab) PM some years ago to 'think the unthinkable' in terms of the welfare state. He did so, but whatever conclusions he came to have never reached public consciousness - certainly, the then ruling politicians sank them without trace.

The last guy (Beveridge) that was asked to do that actually got a report published. And then Labour implemented all but the important underlying principles of a welfare state - no means tested benefits. He was acutely aware of the divisive nature of means testing and the poverty trap.