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

sparkycat2

missapril75 wrote: »

But why are you looking at the excess only? That's not the full picture.
You can have £6000 for I/S & JSA so there's no loss of income even though you would get interest. If you have, say £7000, the tariff income is £4. That's about 3% pa.

It would still be 3% if interest rates were much higher. It wasn't that long ago.

You win some, you lose some.

As for pensioners, they can have £10000 before it makes a difference. When did £10000 not attract interest?

If you have £10500, that's £1 tariff income. Nearer 0.4%.

I think you can get better than 0.4% on £10000 can't you?

When you look at the whole picture - including the "up to £6000" or "up to £10000" that makes no difference - it looks better.

Take a savings account at 2.8%
Then take UK inflation RPI at 3.2%
The money in the savings account is devaluing.

In my view some savings have to be permitted because you do not want to discourage people from having any savings. I would also hope that it is normal for people to have some savings.

While unlimited savings is something that can not be permitted because means tested benefits are a welfare safety net provided out of general taxation. You would have people on low incomes with little or no savings paying taxes to provide those who are capital rich but income poor with more income.

These days however it seems many people just have lots of debts. Now servicing debts besides a mortgage is something the welfare system is definitely not designed to able to do.

Dunroamin

enabledebra wrote: »

Here's an expert view on disability related costs:

http://www.jrf.org.uk/system/files/1859352375.pdf

or we could carry on speculating...

Many of us don't need to speculate as we're well aware of the costs (or lack of them) where disabilities are concerned.

enabledebra

Dunroamin wrote: »

Many of us don't need to speculate as we're well aware of the costs (or lack of them) where disabilities are concerned.

Individual experience of disability does not give knowledge or expertise of the costs of disability incurred by 'the disabled'. Those with a disability are not experts on the disabled when it comes to specifics like this- the group is far too diverse for that.

Johno100

missapril75 wrote: »

But why are you looking at the excess only? That's not the full picture.
You can have £6000 for I/S & JSA so there's no loss of income even though you would get interest. If you have, say £7000, the tariff income is £4. That's about 3% pa.

It would still be 3% if interest rates were much higher. It wasn't that long ago.

You win some, you lose some.

As for pensioners, they can have £10000 before it makes a difference. When did £10000 not attract interest?

If you have £10500, that's £1 tariff income. Nearer 0.4%.

I think you can get better than 0.4% on £10000 can't you?

When you look at the whole picture - including the "up to £6000" or "up to £10000" that makes no difference - it looks better.

When you consider that we're talking means tested benefits and that tends to involve people at lower income levels, that likely includes people at lower "savings" levels too and it's a lot more generous in those cases.

I imagine the far greater number of people who have little or nothing spare at all are quite envious of those who can have £6000 or £10000 and still get full benefits.

Oh dear, it is £1 per WEEK per £250, or £52 per annum.

52/250 x 100 = 20.8% per annum

I hope you were not in charge of calculating claims when you worked at the DWP.

FBaby

sparkycat2 wrote: »

DLA is not intended solely to help towards care and mobility needs costs of those who have such costs. It is intended that claimants can spend the money however they choose, the aim being to improve their quality of life.

In parliamentary select committees on DLA they state that the care and mobility criteria are proxies for gauging level of disability. That the money should be spent however the claimant pleases and that it is a shame that in some areas claimants have to use the money to pay towards care or mobility needs that in other areas are provided cheaper or for free. They give examples of good ways in which DLA maybe spent. Examples include someone who buying a new living room carpet so they feel happy about inviting friends round. Another example is someone buying a large flat screen TV because they enjoy watching TV. The aim is improving quality of life.

I think it is a sign of societies compassion and generosity to those misfortunate enough to be ill/disabled enough to claim it. That we would like them to get some enjoyment out of being alive

I agree that if the money is just accumulating in a bank account it is not serving it's purpose. Because having more money in a bank account probably does not improve quality of life. But I do not resent the fact they get the money I would just encourage them to spend it, treat themselves.

So it is okay for someone with a disability to enjoy treats funded by some who can't afford in any way such treats? Aligning lifestyle is one thing allowing extra enjoyment is bound to breed resentment. Many people have conditions that limit their lives other then because of disabilities.

FBaby

enabledebra wrote: »

Exactly, it's paid to reflect an estimate of the additional cost of everyday life a disability brings- it's not exact because it can't be as there are only five 5 rates in total and thousands of variables in disability related living costs - so for some people DLA will be more than enough to meet the additional costs and for some it won't be enough. The intention of DLA payments - has IMO been eroded by the increasing demand that people use it to contribute to actual care costs. But it's not alone as JSA etc are also to meet daily living costs but increasingly there is a demand it's used to pay housing costs.

For some people but not others do the 'others' are the one I have issues with. My two friends whose children get DLA don't have such additional costs. They are in mainstream school. They say themselves that DLA allows for treats they wouldn't be able to afford otherwise.

FBaby

Naf wrote: »

Your convenience is your savings. Is saving you your time - some people can't even manage that.

In that case those who do get the time shouldn't need the extra funds it goes both ways.

clemmatis

What unsavoury and, basically, jealous, people some of you are. And all this bile in response to a post from someone, who clearly hopes to commit benefits fraud, who has £6,000 in savings that may or may not have been saved from benefits.

The poster may or may not be a troll, but if not, he's put all previous trolls to shame. Andy need not have bothered to invent hyperbolic scenarios. A post containing "£6,000 in savings" and "benefits" has been far more successful in raising ire, not about fraud, I repeat, not about fraud, but about disability living allowance.

The thread should be moved to DT.

Naf

Dunroamin wrote: »

This sounds to me like compensation for drawing a rubbish hand in life, definitely not something that disability benefits should be about.

This is part of the reason I placed disabled people in the unemployment benefit bracket in my example; then added a premium for them. There are many people on disability benefits who would be perfectly capable of working, but only at a very specific and limited number/type of jobs. I don't see the disability as a get out for continuing to look and apply for jobs they could do; but as it would be expected to take longer, they still qualify for the same disability premium in the meantime.

clemmatis wrote: »

...who clearly hopes to commit benefits fraud...

Perhaps you should read the thread; or just re-read the OP and take note of the word legal

clemmatis

Naf wrote: »

Perhaps you should read the thread; or just re-read the OP and take note of the word legal

I'd say I read the OP better than a number of posters, here, after all, I did say

£6,000

and

and may or may not have been saved from benefits

and if you had read the thread, you would know that I had read the thread.

And yes I noticed "legal". But as you're unhappy about the word, I'll change my allegation to "clearly hopes to evade benefits rules".