How would inheritance affect Brother's families benefits?

Adereterial

cepheus wrote: »

They surely wouldn't count deprevation of assets as erasing debts and buying a standard car to replace the one which keeps breaking down that would be ridiculous. In practice neither can they expect him to have no holidays providing they are no different to what he had in previous years.

If the debt is not due then paying it off early in order to retain benefits will be seen as deprivation of capital and he will be treated as if he still had the money.

A modest car purchase, and a modest holiday will not prove problematic. If he blows the whole lot on a holiday and a car there will be questions asked and he may lose benefit as a result.

cepheus

I also understand if he is 60+ the assumed income is 1£ per £500 per week above £6000 rather than 1£ per 250?

sleepless_saver

cepheus wrote: »

I also understand if he is 60+ the assumed income is 1£ per £500 per week above £6000 rather than 1£ per 250?

When he reaches the age where he can claim pension credit (which is the state pension age for women - this used to be 60 but is gradually increasing so maybe that's what you're thinking of) assumed income is £1 per £500 over £10000 with no upper capital limit.

If he's claiming income related JSA it's £1 per £250 over £6000, and no income related JSA with capital over £16000.

AnxiousMum

cepheus wrote: »

Indeed that would have been the wishes of my Mother. His part of the will is in danger of effectively being given to the state because he is poor. Expressed this way I think the hostile attitude of many of those on this thread at any attempts at tax-benefit planning is despicable.

Not quite......he is in a position through receipt of an inheritance to provide for himself......if only for a limited time. People aren't being hostile, just honest and open with answers to the question being asked.

In an earlier post you mention a holiday as he's accustomed to taking wouldn't be deprivation of capital? Hmmm, as a working person.....who has reduced hours to care for children recently - do you think it would be reasonable for me to say 'I'm taking a holiday to Australia this year, as I have always done' while depriving my children of necessities - just because it's what I have always done? Times change, our circumstances change - just that as individuals we need to realise that with those changes, come lifestyle changes as well.

While I hope that he is able to resume work full time in the near future so that he might truly benefit from the inheritance, I also hope that in the meantime he is able to budget properly till he can get back on his feet. The benefits system is there for those in need, not for those who wish to stash what cash they can for a rainy day. Your brother's rainy day will resume when his inheritance has been utilised for his necessities.

Dunroamin

zagfles wrote: »

But there is no doubt that there is much more moral outrage directed at people trying to maximise benefits than there is at people trying to minimise tax. There is a whole board on MSE dedicated to "cutting tax".

There's a whole board on MSE dedicated to maximising benefits - this one!

(Not just my opinion but specifically stated by a PG when I queried something.)

Dunroamin

cepheus wrote: »

Unfortunately at 60 he tends to be fixed in his ways and will continue in a low paid job until he retires. Personally I think he deserves all the benefits he can get after working every year of his life bar 6 months since he was 14 or 15. What's that, 45-46 years of NI? No pension though.

Hopefully Sales people won't see him as a target.

Why hasn't he got a pension if he's worked and paid NICs for those years?

Dunroamin

Dunroamin wrote: »

There's a whole board on MSE dedicated to maximising benefits - this one!

(Not just my opinion but specifically stated by a PG when I queried something.)

Oops - I meant BG (must have been fancying a cuppa:o)

cepheus

Dunroamin wrote: »

Why hasn't he got a pension if he's worked and paid NICs for those years?

I mean no private pension, so state pension only

cepheus

AnxiousMum wrote: »

While I hope that he is able to resume work full time in the near future so that he might truly benefit from the inheritance.

A more likely scenerio is that when the balance falls to 16k he will stop working altogether, since it isn't worth it due to his low wage. This is almost inevitable, and I don't blame him one bit!

Think about it, his work is manual and will remain so, it pays a pittance and will remain so, he is 60 with back problems and he lives in a very high unemployment area where he is lucky to find a part time job.

Frankly it seems ridiculous to me in a state which allows no tax on half a millions quid of inheritance bullies the poor in a high unemployment area in for attempting to save a trifling amount for emergencies.

I sometimes wonder what planet some people are living on and have no idea how the other half live. Roll on François Hollande. Let's increase the minimum wage so workers don't need top us and tax the rich!

rogerblack

xylophone wrote: »

"Entitlement" is the key? If you have the capital, whether by savings, inheritance or earning then you're not entitled?

Indeed - it was not clear at that point in the thread that the person willing the money had actually passed on.

If this was not the case, then the 'estate planning' points I raised in http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=52945989&postcount=8 would have been relevant - the person might be entitled if the will was varied, which was what I was trying to point out.

Once the person dies, any attempt at doing this will be deprivation of capital.