inheritance, mental health and disability/housing benefit

Jemma-T

When I said it's nobody's business I meant his relatives (and relative's).

It's his money to do with as he likes and unless he's -I suppose I'll have to say- got massive learning difficulties [other than the corect non-PC terms I used] he'll have to deal with the consequences.

Just because someone has been sectioned (or not as may well be the case here) doesn't mean he should be wrapped in cotton wool and treated like an 'idiot'.

That was my point.

Jemma-T

skintandscared wrote: »

... If you knew anything at all about it, you would know how disastrous your suggestion could be.

What's that got to do with other people? It's his money.

I suppose if he won the lottery there'd be lots and lots of relatives and friends trying to 'help' him too.

Arg

Dunroamin wrote: »

There's nothing to stop you drip feeding him the money as long as he's declared it and has stopped claiming any means tested benefits.

I'm sure they were asking how to avoid this but you already knew that.

princessdon wrote: »

Wow - How to stuff the tax payers! What about the moral route of

"If you have money you no longer need benefits" Or is it not a safety net anymore - Is it a right for some people?

Helping people get what their entitled to is what this forums about, perhaps you'd like to have a moan about people cutting tax in the cutting tax forum?

skintandscared_2

Arg wrote: »

Helping people get what their entitled to is what this forums about, perhaps you'd like to have a moan about people cutting tax in the cutting tax forum?

Absolutely. But if circumstances change and they suddenly become "not entitled", the advice could constitute suggesting fraud.

skintandscared_2

Jemma-T wrote: »

When I said it's nobody's business I meant his relatives (and relative's).

It's his money to do with as he likes and unless he's -I suppose I'll have to say- got massive learning difficulties [other than the corect non-PC terms I used] he'll have to deal with the consequences.

Just because someone has been sectioned (or not as may well be the case here) doesn't mean he should be wrapped in cotton wool and treated like an 'idiot'.

That was my point.

I don't really know how to explain this but I will try. The OP isn't trying to take this man's money or in any way deny him it. But the mere thought of receiving it has put the man in hospital. His mind cannot cope with it and the potential changes it could make to the way he lives (i.e. no longer receiving the usual benefit payments). At the moment, he knows his routine and it's stable. That helps him cope with life.

Certain mental health conditions (such as bipolar) are well known for causing spending sprees during manic phases. One famous bipolar sufferer, Stephen Fry, has confessed to having mad spending splurges on gadgets, only to realise afterwards that he then owns 3 or 4 of the same thing. Now, if you have the money to do that without too much of an impact, that's great. But if you don't, the consequences could be that you then have nothing to eat/no rent money. If the man in question here was given that money and went online and blew the lot on something ridiculous, it's likely that the benefits people would view that as deprivation of capital and stop his benefits. Then what would he do?!

It's all very well saying it's his money and if he messes up he'll have to live with the consequences, but the consequences could easily be that he ends up with, say, 6 flight tickets for travel he never intends going on and no money for bills or food. Do you think it would be okay if the "consequences" were him sat huddled in the corner of his bedroom, confused and hungry, until someone (probably one of those intefering relatives you mentioned) finds him?

I "get" that people don't recognise mental illness in the same way as physical disability. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist and that those people can't be helped!

rogerblack

skintandscared wrote: »

Absolutely. But if circumstances change and they suddenly become "not entitled", the advice could constitute suggesting fraud.

Apologies if I've misconstrued which bit you're replying to.

This is the old tax avoidance/evasion debate.
Tax avoidance is entirely legal, and is structuring your finances so that you pay less tax.

It can vary from the simple, explicitly approved of - ISAs for example - through to buying expensive houses through a dummy company to avoid stamp duty. (which loophole has been closed in the budget)

There are whole legions of people in the phone book that will help you with this.

Tax evasion is lying about your financial position in order to pay less tax. This is illegal.

Similarly with benefits.
It is quite possible and legal to arrange your affairs so that you get the maximum amount of benefit permitted by the law.

Similarly helping someone out, or leaving them money in a will. You can consider both the tax and benefits position to do this in an entirely legal manner resulting in them getting most of your money, not the state.

Giving away money you own to get more benefits is not allowed.

However, someone else choosing to give you money in a way that does not affect your benefits, rather than one that does, is completely OK.
(As long as you did not have the legal right to this money free and clear)

Jemma-T

skintandscared wrote:

Stephen Fry, has confessed...

I assume that's the rather rotund intelligent millionaire you refer to. I'm sure he's perfectly fine.

skintandscared wrote:

Then what would he do?!

Nobody's business here and certainly nothing to do with the OP (as he's plainly said himself).

I reckon the person we're all talking about doesn't want people talking about him nor 'helping him'. Again, he's free to decide and doesn't need nannied (unless he under a mental health sectioning of course) or pointed in the right direction. He's an adult after all.

Give him his money.

Dunroamin

Jemma-T wrote: »

Nobody's business here and certainly nothing to do with the OP (as he's plainly said himself).

I reckon the person we're all talking about doesn't want people talking about him nor 'helping him'. Again, he's free to decide and doesn't need nannied (unless he under a mental health sectioning of course) or pointed in the right direction. He's an adult after all.

Give him his money.

There'd be even more mentally ill people living on the streets if anyone was stupid enough to follow your advice!

skintandscared_2

Jemma-T wrote: »

I assume that's the rather rotund intelligent millionaire you refer to. I'm sure he's perfectly fine.



Nobody's business here and certainly nothing to do with the OP (as he's plainly said himself).

I reckon the person we're all talking about doesn't want people talking about him nor 'helping him'. Again, he's free to decide and doesn't need nannied (unless he under a mental health sectioning of course) or pointed in the right direction. He's an adult after all.

Give him his money.

You clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about as regards mental illness so I'm not sure why you are even commenting on this thread. Yes, I'm sure Stephen Fry is fine, as is Russell Brand and was Spike Milligan, but that doesn't change the fact that they had/have suffered mental illness. From you post that was removed (using the word "retard") you obviously have a misconception that people with mental health conditions are stupid or unintelligent. More often than not they actually have strains of complete genius in certain areas. Many of the most famous composers/artists were mentally ill. The person concerned is hospitalised. Being "sectioned" is an imposed period of hospitalisation usually after an episode or at the request of family, but self-admission doesn't result in any different treatment! It just means that the person has a long enough period of clarity to realise that they need help, and ask for it.

The stigma with mental illness isn't helped by people who refuse to acknowledge that it even exists or at least try and have some empathy for those who are suffering.

Jemma-T

I did't call anyone a retard or an idiot -my point was people (including the OP) are treating someone like it because they think he's not well enough to bank a bit of cash.

This thread has nothing to do with mental health either, just people's perception of it or to be accurate, people's perception of people with the illness.

My post should never have been removed and shame on the moderator for doing that with no good reason (knee jerk, being chronically PC and ill-informed are not good reasons -try and be a bit more subtle).

And the guy still doesn't have what's rightfully his.