How would inheritance affect Brother's families benefits?

Soapn

well the word I'd use there is stupidity, not deprivation

cepheus wrote: »

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.

cepheus

well the word I'd use there is stupidity, not deprivation

Presumably you mean its stupid to take out a high APR loan in the first place rather than paying it off? In that I would surely agree. However the 'stupid' are a sizable minority in our society and it is not necessarily their fault they haven't got the sense to understand finance. Rather it is the responsibility of those with the financial sense to legislate and prosecute those who take advantage of them, rather than ranting on about something which can't change.

However, this gets even more interesting. By discouraging claimants to pay off high APR loans the authorities (some on here claim, but I still do't believe it) are effectively supporting that disgusting industry, and encouraging claimees to continue to pay morally repugnant interest rates. Yet it is partly that industry which may have resulted in the need for state benefits in the first place for these people.

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

I very much doubt it! Certainly not the ones which have since escalated to unmanageable proportions. Once again I feel some participants of this board are almost out of touch as the Bullington boys. See above.

Soapn

stupidity and desperation are why people take out thoose loans.

but nobody marches them over with a gun to their back and makes them sign.

people need to start taking responsibility for their own actions.

cepheus wrote: »

Presumably you mean its stupid to take out a high APR loan in the first place rather than paying it off? In that I would surely agree. However the 'stupid' are a sizable minority in our society and it is not necessarily their fault they haven't got the sense to understand finance. Rather it is the responsibility of those with the financial sense to legislate and prosecute those who take advantage of them, rather than ranting on about something which can't change.

However, this gets even more interesting. By discouraging claimants to pay off high APR loans the authorities (some on here claim, but I still do't believe it) are effectively supporting that disgusting industry, and encouraging claimees to continue to pay morally repugnant interest rates. Yet it is partly that industry which may have resulted in the need for state benefits in the first place for these people.



I very much doubt it! Certainly not the ones which have since escalated to unmanageable proportions. Once again I feel some participants of this board are almost out of touch as the Bullington boys. See above.

zagfles

Dunroamin wrote: »

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.

Of course there's an ethical dimension to benefits, as there is to most things in life. But here is not the place to discuss it, particularly in a judgemental way in threads where people want factual answers not moral judgement.

There's an ethical dimension to food choice, but a veggie posting "meat is murder" type messages on a recipes board whenever anyone asked for a shepherd's pie recipe would soon be banned. As would a green on a transport board who constantly called people for driving or flying.

cepheus

zagfles wrote: »

Of course there's an ethical dimension to benefits, as there is to most things in life. But here is not the place to discuss it, particularly in a judgemental way in threads where people want factual answers not moral judgement.

There's an ethical dimension to food choice, but a veggie posting "meat is murder" type messages on a recipes board whenever anyone asked for a shepherd's pie recipe would soon be banned. As would a green on a transport board who constantly called people for driving or flying.

Indeed, I am guilty as well, so apologies for retaliating to the intimidating posts.

I don't often visit benefits board, but we certainly need a Moderator on here so questions can be answered as helpfully as possible without any moral judgements. DT is the place for this. Similarily on tax issues on other boards.