Will we be entitled to any more benefits?

CornishWildFlower

HappyMJ wrote: »

If you were working and earning as you say £1,748 between you then you would also get top-up benefits such as housing benefit and child tax credits. You would also get working tax credits. It's not all bad...but yes generally most people aren't that much better off when taking into account the cost of getting to and from a workplace.

With 3 children you can earn up to £38,825 per year (£3,235 per month) and still get some form of benefits.

Apologies for butting in but, are you sure about the top ups? I take home £1035.00 every 4 weeks and my husband takes home £630.00 also 4 weekly and we're certainly not eligible for WTC, HB etc. We work 64 hours a week between us (me 39 and him 25) with two children.

falko89

CornishWildFlower wrote: »

Apologies for butting in but, are you sure about the top ups? I take home £1035.00 every 4 weeks and my husband takes home £630.00 also 4 weekly and we're certainly not eligible for WTC, HB etc. We work 64 hours a week between us (me 39 and him 25) with two children.

When I worked, I took home £1000 a month, my partner around £420, we got something like £80 a month WTC and no HB as we like you weren't entitled.

Murgatroyd21

CornishWildFlower wrote: »

Apologies for butting in but, are you sure about the top ups? I take home £1035.00 every 4 weeks and my husband takes home £630.00 also 4 weekly and we're certainly not eligible for WTC, HB etc. We work 64 hours a week between us (me 39 and him 25) with two children.

Can get ctc for 3 children with a gross income of around £38734pa. It's less for 2 children.

heathcote123

fogartyblue. wrote: »

I am so glad that you can appreciate the situation.

I know jobs are hard to come by at the moment.

I too would have done anything to work if I had have been in your situation. But as you agree, the government don't seem to make it financially viable to work, not when you can be worse off by working more hours!

The problem is not really the government not making it financially viable to work, it's more the fact that they made if financially viable not to work in the first place.

Wages arent just going to go up by magic unfortunately. Best bet is to stick with a company for a while, work hard and get promoted. The calculations wont look so bad when you are comparing against jobs that aren't nmw.

good luck.

Credit-Crunched

HappyMJ wrote: »

Wages are too low but the marginal deduction rates are too high making it just not worth working. If I worked 1 extra day a week and increased my earnings by £100 I would get to keep £4 to use on bus fares to get to/from work. Therefore at the end of an additional 8 hour shift I would not be better off at all. So why do it? Hopefully, universal credits will make the calculation better and make it worth working.

Why do it?

Self respect, dignity, morals, principles, if we all adopted that mindset there would be on money in the coffers to pay your benefits!

Luckily for you some of us work, and work hard, yes we may not earn much and to and fro work costs money, but I can sit down knowing what I spend I have earnt. You can not put a price on that!

xylophone

fogartyblue. wrote: »

falko89 wrote: »

I absolutely agree with your point.

However all of this talk about trying to live on £67 a week is being silly.

When you factor in all of the benefits that can be claimed, the amount received is far far above what most people could possibly earn.

I had a situation a while ago in trying to work out what a couple pensioners would get.
You hear the statement that pensioners have to live on £132 a week - rubbish.
Being of that age and there is always the possibly of not being able to do things as they did when they were in their 20's.

Most pensioners claim Attendance Allowance (83% guarantee for it to be awarded!) Then they claim to spend at least 35 hours a week caring for each other and are awarded Carers Allowance.
With just that one benefit that couple (one has to be over 60) their minimum income will be £503.20 a week!!!! On top of that they will pay no rent or council tax.

Benefits are far too high and too generous. Two 60 year olds raking in between them say £630 a week is beyond belief! But that is what is actually happening.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/Caringforsomeone/DG_10018705

"How much do you get?
The weekly rate is £55.55. This is reduced by the amount of certain other benefits, including State Pension, that you get.
If you receive certain other benefits at £55.55 or more a week, you won't get Carer's Allowance as well."

Anubis_2

fogartyblue. wrote: »

I absolutely agree with your point.

However all of this talk about trying to live on £67 a week is being silly.

When you factor in all of the benefits that can be claimed, the amount received is far far above what most people could possibly earn.

I had a situation a while ago in trying to work out what a couple pensioners would get.
You hear the statement that pensioners have to live on £132 a week - rubbish.
Being of that age and there is always the possibly of not being able to do things as they did when they were in their 20's.

Most pensioners claim Attendance Allowance (83% guarantee for it to be awarded!) Then they claim to spend at least 35 hours a week caring for each other and are awarded Carers Allowance.
With just that one benefit that couple (one has to be over 60) their minimum income will be £503.20 a week!!!! On top of that they will pay no rent or council tax.

Benefits are far too high and too generous. Two 60 year olds raking in between them say £630 a week is beyond belief! But that is what is actually happening.

This is not correct! Apart from AA, any other benefit claimed cash in hand would be DEDUCTIBLE so as not to go over the minimum amount.

For example - if someone is entitled to £140 pension, and carers is 60, then carers is DEDUCTED off the 140 leaving 80, so that would mean only 140 is received in total 80 + 60. It is NOT 140 plus 60!

Carers as well as any other taxable benefit is ALWAYS DEDUCTED. So what you are claiming his not correct.

You could claim 6 different benefits, and if one was AA, The other 5 of them each cancel the other out, only leaving underlying entitlement without receiving the actual money apart from the minimum amount.

Dunroamin

Anubis wrote: »

This is not correct! Apart from AA, any other benefit claimed cash in hand would be DEDUCTIBLE so as not to go over the minimum amount.

For example - if someone is entitled to £140 pension, and carers is 60, then carers is DEDUCTED off the 140 leaving 80, so that would mean only 140 is received in total 80 + 60. It is NOT 140 plus 60!

Carers as well as any other taxable benefit is ALWAYS DEDUCTED. So what you are claiming his not correct.

You could claim 6 different benefits, and if one was AA, The other 5 of them each cancel the other out, only leaving underlying entitlement without receiving the actual money apart from the minimum amount.

Absolutely right.

Plus the idea that the majority of pensioners claim AA is quite ludicrous, unless 20% has suddenly become a majority!

falko89

heathcote123 wrote: »

The problem is not really the government not making it financially viable to work, it's more the fact that they made if financially viable not to work in the first place.

Wages arent just going to go up by magic unfortunately. Best bet is to stick with a company for a while, work hard and get promoted. The calculations wont look so bad when you are comparing against jobs that aren't nmw.

good luck.

And then when your made redundant your back on the scrap heap starting again from square one:mad:

fogartyblue.

Anubis wrote: »

This is not correct! Apart from AA, any other benefit claimed cash in hand would be DEDUCTIBLE so as not to go over the minimum amount.

For example - if someone is entitled to £140 pension, and carers is 60, then carers is DEDUCTED off the 140 leaving 80, so that would mean only 140 is received in total 80 + 60. It is NOT 140 plus 60!

Carers as well as any other taxable benefit is ALWAYS DEDUCTED. So what you are claiming his not correct.

You could claim 6 different benefits, and if one was AA, The other 5 of them each cancel the other out, only leaving underlying entitlement without receiving the actual money apart from the minimum amount.

Yes but what you are missing, are the 'premiums'.

OK as an example:

A couple both of which are over 65.
They each get AA at the lowest rate for maybe Arthritis, maybe they can't understand benefit forms and need help or maybe they have had a couple of 'dizzy' spells in the past few years because they got up from a chair too quick.


The minimum that they are entitled to is:

As a couple £217.90 a week
'disability premium' £116.40 a week
2 lots of 'carers premium' £65.20 a week (underlying entitlement)
2 lots of lower rate AA £103.70

That gives a minimum level of income that they are entitled to of £503.20 a week.

Add to that rent (100%) of £100 a week and Council Tax benefit of another £26.80 a week.
That takes their deemed income to £630 a week!!

It doesn't matter how that comes in:

State Pensions £171.85 a wwek
2 lots of AA £103.70 a week
Company Pension £75.00 a week
No Rent - a saving of £100.00 a week
No Council Tax - a saving of £26.80 a week
Pension Credit of £152.65 a week

Total deemed weekly income £630.00 a week

Now you tell me if you think that two OAP's actually need that level of deemed income in today's economic climate?
Especially when a young family with a couple of kids have to live on half of that amount! It's totally obscene!!

http://www.herefordshire.gov.uk/factsandfigures/979.aspx


Currently close to 25% of all persons over 65 receive Attendance Allowance. A massive increase over the past 7 years.

Of those that claim each year, 83% are successful. And then I question why is the success rate that high - 83% when DLA is under 50%?
Is the government giving in too easy when it comes to AA claims? I think it is.


Approx 30% of the population over 65 make a claim for Attendance Allowance.