How would inheritance affect Brother's families benefits?

zagfles

Boots888 wrote: »

Neither the increase in pension age nor reduction in JSA is fair. I'd be !!!!ed off if they affected me.

But removing ESA for the long term sick is outragious and completeley different as they are, unlike the above, vulnerable.

That's not necessarily the case - in some cases those on ESA are in a better financial position than those on JSA.

I don't agree with the change but I'm getting sick of all the hyperbole surrounding it and "targetting the weak and sick" headlines etc. Means tested benefits will still be available to those who are really "vunerable".

zagfles

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.)

Yet you still get people expressing moral outrage at anyone who discusses ways of maximising benefits! Just look at the threads on the child benefit change, or from single parents concerned about drop in benefits if their new partner moves in.

Perhaps all such comments should be immediately reported if they go against the purpose of this board;)

Teahfc

cepheus wrote: »

Roll on François Hollande. Let's increase the minimum wage so workers don't need top us and tax the rich!

Sadly Hollande will find it hard to change things for 3 years in the EU,may be in France a few changes?
Not higher wages its more people need to be taken out the tax system,working tax credits need to be scrapped to avoid problems and this can be done by removing a tier of low earners paying income TAX.

Voyager2002

mynameistallulah wrote: »

Inheritance put into a child's account in order to avoid losing benefits are counted as notional capital ... and your argument is utter rubbish!

What happened to "be nice to Moneysavers"?

I happen to agree with the 'ethical argument', and in any case, describing an argument is "utter rubbish" is the tactic of a fascist, not an intelligent critic.

Dunroamin

zagfles wrote: »

Perhaps all such comments should be immediately reported if they go against the purpose of this board;)

Many people ( myself included :o) have been yellow carded for arguing that there is an ethical dimension to benefits which is as relevant as the question of entitlement.

cepheus

After placing his details through the 'entitledto' site, I think most of his benefits are probably in the form of Tax Credit and Child Benefit which are unaffected. The Interest on the savings should make up for half of the lost housing and council tax benefit although I'm unsure of the precise details of their income.

Interestingly my Brother tells me he took a small loan off "some woman who comes round to the door, but is probably based in a shop down town somewhere!" Are you thinking what I am?

Perhaps we should place this on Money Morals. Should paying off a loan (money you don't really have) to a payday lender or loan shark count as deprivation?

With regard to standard loans I would still like to see a credible source (the actual page) which claims these are classed as deprivation especially in view that my friend managed to pay these off without them being classed as such.

zagfles

See this link:

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/hbgm-bw1-assessment-of-capital.pdf

As you can see the rules are not based around what was done with the money, but rather why it was done. Of course "why" is a lot harder to establish, but I would think if a loan shark came calling, or even if the loan was charged at high interest, there are very good reasons to pay off the debt which have nothing to do with securing extra benefit entitlement.

Adereterial

Check section W1.732 of the document posted above - it is quite clear. Paying off a debt not due for repayment in order to maintain benefit is deprivation of capital and is not acceptable.

cepheus

Adereterial wrote: »

Check section W1.732 of the document posted above - it is quite clear.

Hardly! In the unlikely event that any claimant has ever found it, it is still vague and there is certainly no obligation for the assessor to act, which may explain why my friend was allowed to pay it off. Let's face it most loans lent to claimants are at very high APRs and it is very sensible to close the debt if they have the capital irrespective of benefits. In the case of a mortgage at say 5% I agree it would be different.

Thanks for sifting through it anyway I did it twice with the word 'debt' yesterday and couldn't see a damn thing!

W1.732 When capital has been used to repay a debt give careful consideration as to whether the debt needed to be repaid at that time. If there was no legal obligation to do so then it may be that part of the claimant’s purpose was to obtain or increase the amount of benefit

Dunroamin

cepheus wrote: »

. Let's face it most loans lent to claimants are at very high APRs and it is very sensible to close the debt if they have the capital irrespective of benefits.

I don't see why you would say this as most loans will have been taken out before the claimant went on benefits.