LEGAL places to put capital that are not taken into account by DWP by DWP

missapril75

speedfreek1000 wrote: »

Functional, small, collectible & in permanent demand items; the most obvious one here is 2nd hand watches.

How do you tell the time with just a second hand? :rotfl:

Johno100 wrote: »

I have some money to invest, can somebody tell me where I can get the rate of interest the government uses for this calculation?

Although a valid point, nobody ever complained about the tariff income being a low figure when interest rates have been higher.

Plus there is no tariff income on the first few grand even though there is interest.

It's swings and roundabouts.

The alternative would probably involve constant reassessing and associated admin work.

princessdon

BurnleyBob wrote: »

Yes, that's what the government's present plans entail. They might move the goalposts to £10k and £20k. Nobody knows yet, including them. But means-testing is a definite because, after all, they are out to lower the welfare bill. For Making Work Pay, read Making Work Pay Less.

This http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/sep/15/welfare-bill-iain-duncan-smith recent article about Universal Credit makes no mention of that aspect of UC. It mostly concerns part-time workers who could have their benefit sanctioned unless they make strenuous efforts to secure full time employment (defined as 35 hours per week or more).

Should people who are 1p over the Tax Credit limit working full time hours plus (26K for 1 child) be stuggling (which most are), maybe wracking up debt whilst someone has £50K in the bank and choses to work say part time?

That is the stupidity of the current Tax Credit Situation - It should always have been means tested and this should be considered before they lowered the rate.

I have a tremendous amount of sympathy for a family in an expensive area earning £26K to support a family, pay all bills and get themselves to work.

princessdon

Naf wrote: »

Unemployment benefits shouldn't be long term. They should be set at such a level that its possible to live, but not easy street, to give proper incentive to find work.



No, I don't. It might sound harsh, but people should be making a proper effort to provide for themselves.

I think that local authority and government positions which require little/no qualifications should be filled by the unemployed. The state pays their benefits, they should work P/T for the state. This would alleviate the bill footed by taxpayers for emptying bins, street sweeping etc. and probably increase the workforce available for such too. Something akin to the workfair scheme.

That was my idea a while ago too. LA have had so many cuts some fantastic services have had to go (meals on wheels, befriending, library, afterschool, disabled childrens clubs) etc etc.

Those who are hard working and currently get up at 6am to empty the bins/sweep the roads/ mop up the dog mess etc should be given the opportunity to "move accross" to something they may prefer. Then those on benefits have to work their jobs.

At the moment the argument would be if they picked up litter they would be putting someone out of ajob - so move jobs around for those that have been getting cut more and more so those services can be resumed for the good of the communities.

Johno100

missapril75 wrote: »

Although a valid point, nobody ever complained about the tariff income being a low figure when interest rates have been higher.

Plus there is no tariff income on the first few grand even though there is interest.

It's swings and roundabouts.

The alternative would probably involve constant reassessing and associated admin work.

Can you remind me when savings rates were anywhere close to the 20% per annum the government calculates you can earn from savings between £8k and £16k?

sparkycat2

Naf wrote: »

Unemployment benefits shouldn't be long term. They should be set at such a level that its possible to live, but not easy street, to give proper incentive to find work.

But your proposal seems to be that those not capable of working should also endure that poverty "incentive" of a meager life on subsistence benefits.

That the disabled top up would be based on actual need of support/care by which I assume you mean solely covering additional costs incurred due to disability.

No mention of extra money to enable them to survive long term. What do they do if their cooker or fridge breaks down? Will they ever be able to replace worn out carpets, furniture, etc... or even afford new shoes or clothes? Do they live in increasing squalor?

No mention of extra income to enable them to have a life worth living, to partake in society, or do non essential things or buy non essential items. Do they not deserve a quality of life above mere subsistence, are they not worthy of a better quality of life?

Naf wrote: »

No, I don't. It might sound harsh, but people should be making a proper effort to provide for themselves.

What about children, elderly, severely disabled, carers. Those who are not able or who are not expected to fend for themselves or who are occupied caring for others.

Naf wrote: »

I think that local authority and government positions which require little/no qualifications should be filled by the unemployed. The state pays their benefits, they should work P/T for the state. This would alleviate the bill footed by taxpayers for emptying bins, street sweeping etc. and probably increase the workforce available for such too. Something akin to the workfair scheme.

I have no problem in theory with those able working for their benefits if they are paid minimum wage for the hours they do and are working for the state or community.

But in practice I do not see how it creates enough jobs, work that needs doing. Rather than just replacing currently employed paid workers on higher wages, or acting as a exercise in creating work for people to do. Pointless work not as a benefit to society but as some kind of moral principle that everyone must work or as a punishment for those not working due to the type of work being undesirable.

Do we want a society where those unable to compete and find employment in the free market at minimum wage are a underclass doing the undesirable jobs at minimum or below minimum wage. That would most likely include those who lack productivity vs other workers due to health problems but not enough to qualify for unconditional disability benefits and those who are in their 50s or 60s and find themselves unable to get another job. What of those who fail to comply do we let them starve and hope the assessment that deemed them capable of doing the work they were asked to do was correct.

I would rather have the notion of a fair days work for a fair days pay. Than a society with the ethos of work or starve with all the unemployed employed possilby at subsistence incomes if you intend work for benefits not full time jobs at minimum wage.

I would rather have undesirable jobs warranting higher pay to attract and keep employees than being work or starve for those least able to compete or those deemed socially undesirable, those unable to find employment in the free market.

I would rather have a bottom safety net that gives unconditional support. That net low enough that anybody on it if able would get off it and into any paid employment if they could. If employment involved getting a decent living wage, the incentive could even be relative poverty.

FBaby

Having read many posts here over a number of years, I think that most mean tested benefit claimants who can save income to such an amount that it starts affecting their benefits are those in receipt of DLA. The problem is that DLA is not an income provided on the basis of the costs incurred due to their disability. So whereas some genuily need to spend more and are struggling, others acumulate the benefit to the extend of not knowing what to do with their money. This is fundamentally wrong and whereas I sympathise with the concept that people with disability should be able to enjoy a certain level of lifestyle, it shouldn't extend to the ability to put savings aside that the average working family would be unable to copy.

I was once upon a time a single mum earning circa £40K, hence paying 40% of part of my salary. By the time I had paid the hefty childcare costs, transport, mortgage, and the cost of keeping the house in decent working order, I just never had a penny to save at the end of the month no matter how much I tried to budget well. I might not have been disabled, but my life managing a very demanding job and raising my children alone was very tough. There are many people in a similar situation, working hard, paying their taxes yet unable to save much at all. How is it right that the taxes they are obliged to pay, hence not being able to pay, should go towards people who are paying no such taxes yet receiving enough in return to allow them to save it? It is utterly ludicrous, an insult to those who do work hard and just get by, and a complete disincentive to do so.

BurnleyBob

sparkycat2 wrote: »

But your proposal seems to be that those not capable of working should also endure that poverty "incentive" of a meager life on subsistence benefits.

That the disabled top up would be based on actual need of support/care by which I assume you mean solely covering additional costs incurred due to disability.

No mention of extra money to enable them to survive long term. What do they do if their cooker or fridge breaks down? Will they ever be able to replace worn out carpets, furniture, etc... or even afford new shoes or clothes? Do they live in increasing squalor?

No mention of extra income to enable them to have a life worth living, to partake in society, or do non essential things or buy non essential items. Do they not deserve a quality of life above mere subsistence, are they not worthy of a better quality of life?



What about children, elderly, severely disabled, carers. Those who are not able or who are not expected to fend for themselves or who are occupied caring for others.



I have no problem in theory with those able working for their benefits if they are paid minimum wage for the hours they do and are working for the state or community.

But in practice I do not see how it creates enough jobs, work that needs doing. Rather than just replacing currently employed paid workers on higher wages, or acting as a exercise in creating work for people to do. Pointless work not as a benefit to society but as some kind of moral principle that everyone must work or as a punishment for those not working due to the type of work being undesirable.

Do we want a society where those unable to compete and find employment in the free market at minimum wage are a underclass doing the undesirable jobs at minimum or below minimum wage. That would most likely include those who lack productivity vs other workers due to health problems but not enough to qualify for unconditional disability benefits and those who are in their 50s or 60s and find themselves unable to get another job. What of those who fail to comply do we let them starve and hope the assessment that deemed them capable of doing the work they were asked to do was correct.

I would rather have the notion of a fair days work for a fair days pay. Than a society with the ethos of work or starve with all the unemployed employed possilby at subsistence incomes if you intend work for benefits not full time jobs at minimum wage.

I would rather have undesirable jobs warranting higher pay to attract and keep employees than being work or starve for those least able to compete or those deemed socially undesirable, those unable to find employment in the free market.

I would rather have a bottom safety net that gives unconditional support. That net low enough that anybody on it if able would get off it and into any paid employment if they could. If employment involved getting a decent living wage, the incentive could even be relative poverty.

Nicely put, Sparky.

I suppose that one or two might retort later in the thread that the state already provides unconditional support for those on the bottom rung by way of a roof, three meals a day and a prison cell!

The brutal truth is that Britain has a gigantic surplus of labour with over nine million people of working age classed as economically inactive. That figure doesn't include record numbers of underemployed part-time workers. And as mentioned previously, if Iain Duncan Smith has his way then the majority of them will be harangued or suffer a worse fate for not securing a full time job from next October in spite of the fact that there's not nearly enough jobs to go round for those who already haven't any work at all.

I can easily see vast numbers of Workfair participants toiling for their UC. They won't be aiding communities either; more like private businesses and especially mega corporations at no direct cost to themselves. Luvverly jubberly for the bottom line and their shareholders.

Dunroamin

sparkycat2 wrote: »

The essentials for those on short term benefits are different to those on long term benefits. What do you want to do increase things like JSA or decrease benefits people are expected to live on long term.

Do you want the unemployed to be able to live comfortably on benefits or do you want those unable to fend for themselves looking more disheveled unable to replace worn out clothes and shoes, living in more squalid conditions no ability to replace the broken cooker or fridge, or warn out furniture and carpet, or redecorate and generally more miserable not able to afford any luxuries at all to make their life seem more worth living. Effectively socially excluded from enjoying the benefits of our society because they are unable to fend for themselves, have not earned their share rather than being viewed as having worth in their own right to some quality of life beyond mere subsistence, worthy of being included as part of society.

No, I don't want the unemployed to live comfortably on benefits when so many people in work don't live comfortably.

Current rates of JSA for over 25s allow for the payment of essentials like food and utilities with a little over which claimants can choose how they spend. What this effectively means is that they can EITHER run a car OR smoke OR go out occasionally OR have a cheap holiday OR save for emergencies but certainly not all of these.

That seems to me to be about the right balance.

sparkycat2

FBaby wrote: »

The problem is that DLA is not an income provided on the basis of the costs incurred due to their disability. So whereas some genuily need to spend more and are struggling, others acumulate the benefit to the extend of not knowing what to do with their money. This is fundamentally wrong and whereas I sympathise with the concept that people with disability should be able to enjoy a certain level of lifestyle, it shouldn't extend to the ability to put savings aside that the average working family would be unable to copy.

DLA is a national benefit but from home care to day centres and therapy groups it is a postcode lottery as to what services are available, what services are provided for free, and what services people have to pay towards as far as provision by local authorities, NHS trusts and charities.

The problem of accumulating money in my view is caused by paying people money to compensate them for lack of quality of life due to having care or mobility needs. Then leaving it to the individual to improve their quality of life with the money. With a postcode lottery of what is available. They are in my view too often given the paddle money but no boat things to do places to go, things to spend the money on that they can do and will improve their quality of life.

When those with significant care or mobility needs maybe unable to do things other people do for pleasure and take for granted and spend money doing. With such things being impossible or requiring organization to provide for their care and mobility needs or trained staff.

With limited ability to do things and without provision of things to spend the money on to improve their quality of life I do not find it surprising that some people are simply sat at home their lives unimproved and not knowing what they are suppose to do with the money.

I doubt having money in the bank improves a severely disabled person's quality of life which is what the money is suppose to do.

FBaby wrote: »

I was once upon a time a single mum earning circa £40K, hence paying 40% of part of my salary. By the time I had paid the hefty childcare costs, transport, mortgage, and the cost of keeping the house in decent working order, I just never had a penny to save at the end of the month no matter how much I tried to budget well.

I fail to see the relevance. It is not like they are giving individuals or households £40k plus in benefits.

FBaby wrote: »

I might not have been disabled, but my life managing a very demanding job and raising my children alone was very tough.

The level of benefits disabled people receive is dependent on the amount of care and mobility needs they have. Those with high levels of care and mobility needs usually have severely reduced quality of life. If I was diagnosed with some of the illnesses/disabilities claimants of high awards of DLA have I would be crying myself to sleep and contemplating doing myself in. Being severely disabled is not a comparable life to say single mum on £40k.

FBaby wrote: »

There are many people in a similar situation, working hard, paying their taxes yet unable to save much at all. How is it right that the taxes they are obliged to pay, hence not being able to pay, should go towards people who are paying no such taxes yet receiving enough in return to allow them to save it? It is utterly ludicrous, an insult to those who do work hard and just get by, and a complete disincentive to do so.

Personally I would rather be fit of mind and body and in paid employment paying taxes to provide for those less fortunate. I do not envy or resent those less fortunate than me because I would not want to swap lives with them.

POPPYOSCAR

I agree with the above post.

I would not want to be severely disabled for any amount of money.

I was quite ill recently and could not do a thing, I could not imagine living my life like that all the time, it would be hell.

I feel we have a duty as a society to look after those that find it difficult to look after themselves.

The spongers are another matter entirely.