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

Naf

clemmatis wrote: »

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".

But the OP is specifically asking if there is any legal way to do it; i.e. keep their 6k without breaking any of the rules. The fact that you know that the only ways to do it would be illegal, doesn't mean the OP is asking how to do it that way; they just wondered if there was a loophole anywhere.
And really, as pointed out previously, it would really be no different to the way Cameron's family made their fortune in technically legal, but shady uses of tax loopholes.

sparkycat2

FBaby wrote: »

So it is okay for someone with a disability to enjoy treats funded by some who can't afford in any way such treats?

In my opinion yes because it is about overall quality of life. Improving their quality of life to be closer to a able person, giving them more enjoyment from being alive, making their life more worth living.

As someone able, fit of mind and body I get the treat of living my life as I please going where I want when I want and doing what I want when I want, being independent and being able to care for myself. I am not dependent on someone else to do everyday things to live. I also do not get to endure severe discomfort, pain or distress as part of my everyday life. It is a blessed life, seeing those less fortunate makes me feel very grateful I get to enjoy such a life.

To get DLA the person needs someone to help them do or do for them everyday things able people do. It is not a comparable quality of life.

With DLA
LRC is needing someone to help them some of day
MRC is needing someone to help them all day or to watch over them at night
HRC is needing someone to help them day and night.
LRM is needing someone to help them go unfamiliar places
HRM is needing someone to help them go familiar places or inability to walk, or inability to walk very far or blind (I think you might need now to be both deaf and blind)

FBaby wrote: »

Aligning lifestyle is one thing allowing extra enjoyment is bound to breed resentment.

You can not align their lifestyle, as you can not miraculously cure them. All you can hope to do is improve their quality of life be that by helping towards costs they incur due to disability or enabling them to do or buy things that make their life more worth living. It is a attempt at making their quality of life better, their lives more worth living, although it does not make it equal to that of someone able in my view, I do not envy or resent or begrudge them having something I do not DLA money, as I have something they do not beter health and no severe disability.

FBaby wrote: »

Many people have conditions that limit their lives other then because of disabilities.

The people I know who have care component DLA awards are in patients in hospital (not receiving their care component) in residential care homes (the care home gets the care component to help towards costs) in supported sheltered accommodation with a on site warden, in group home with on call emergency care team, semi-independent living with support team checking they are ok and on call emergency care team, living with relatives who provide for care needs.

The care component DLA in my experience is not a life with limited capability it is a life of being dependent on others to provide care for them to enable them to do everyday things.

DLA Mobility component I would expect normally goes towards paying towards extra costs incurred due to lack of mobility or the need for assistance or special equipment.

rogerblack

FBaby wrote: »

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.

The awkward question for those that advocate that DLA should only be spent on direct costs due to disability is in my view the fact that someone assessed to need 24*7 care gets 77.45 a week.
Where can you get care for 41p/hour?

FBaby

Our you can see it the other way around and ask why a close family member shouldn't be providing care without expecting to be paid for it. I'm playing devils advocate only because it can be seen in both direction.
Sparkycat what about people who sadly have no family at all? Their lifestyle is likely to be less fulfilling than someone with an extended family and support. Should that person get financial benefits to enjoy treats that others can't asked because their life is affected by their lack of family enjoyment? Should a father be able to claim child benefit just because he is a dad even though he might have no contact with the child and therefore associated costs and therefore put the money in savings. maybe not being able to see his child is affecting his well being and enjoyment to life.

Muttleythefrog

FBaby wrote: »

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.

The thing is, is that DLA is merely an attempt by state to meet the obligations upon it regarding the human rights of the disabled. DLA is merely a token test... a very narrow test to get some measure of the severity of disability that people suffer in daily life. An amount of money is given... on the understanding that day to day disability will often mean extra expenses of day to day life in order to enjoy the standard expectations of life like going out, getting washed, having a cooked meal and socialising. And the claimant (or the parent in case of child) can spend as they choose. The system is designed to be quite simplistic because greater evaluation of day to day needs would be costly and actual payments to meet the actual costs of things like care would be of a different order completely. So it's a cheap option for state. PIP which is to replace DLA will be little different.. the test will merely change to measure general level of day to day disability and the associated payments will be different.

In my case I get £70 per week... I require supervision throughout the daytime and when going out. That's, to be conservative, around 100 hours per week. Obviously paying less than a pound an hour is out of the question to receive the care the DLA test says I need. What I can do with the money is improve my situation.... some of it will look like luxuries or treats to an outsider. But to the outsider, if they want a better system.. a more tailored system.. it will cost them more. In a sense it is a bit like the winter fuel allowance for rich pensioners... the system that could make this work better.. i.e. means test the benefit... would potentially cost more than just giving the money out to people who don't need it.

Enigmaman

Thanks for all the replies.

One however angered me and I presume was posted by someone right wing who thinks anyone on benefits is a scrounger.

" You can invest the money safely without the DWP taking it into account, if you stop claiming means tested benefits."

Well, I would like the opportunity. Let me explain my background.

I was rendered borderline blind as the result of a failed NHS eye operation which is the subject of legal action at present. Hence the necessity of being on benefits. Part of the reason for my question

was that if I win any compensation (not guaranteed of course) my lawyer claims that I could put in a trust fund to legally "hide" the capital. They would do so and charge £900 for the privilege. Moreover, as other posters have pointed out, I am in danger of being penalised for being careful with my money - as we're battling over the moral high ground, I can claim not to have contributed to the huge black hole of debt that the country is stuck in - can the person who made the above remark say the same?

Indeed, I could also be considered a poster boy to trying do something positive to get myself out of this situation that is not my fault in the first place - still struggling to work despite discomfort and pain while the profits form my self employment are declared to and taken into account by those working out my benefits.

I might add that getting out of the benefits trap is like trying to escape from quicksand. Work causes me a great deal of stress and over a certain threshold of earnings I lose 85% - effectively taxed at 85p in the pound as that amount is taken off my Housing and Council Tax Benefit until I hit a level of earnings where I am out of the benefits system completely. That is not to mention the loss of Tax Credits plus the obligation to pay Income Tax AND both Class 2 and Class 4 NI contributions. It may well be the case that I would be losing more than £1 for every £1 I earn somewhere along the spectrum.

Meanwhile the DWP assumes £1 tariff income fr every £250 capital or part thereof over £6,000. I would like to know where they think can invest for an annual return of £208 on every £1,000, or over 20%.

Who in their right mind would want to increase their stress levels to such an extent to earn all that extra money for such marginal gain - indeed possibly to be even worse off?

if Two4Tuesday has any constructive suggestions, I look forward to reading them.

sparkycat2

FBaby wrote: »

Sparkycat what about people who sadly have no family at all? Their lifestyle is likely to be less fulfilling than someone with an extended family and support. Should that person get financial benefits to enjoy treats that others can't asked because their life is affected by their lack of family enjoyment? Should a father be able to claim child benefit just because he is a dad even though he might have no contact with the child and therefore associated costs and therefore put the money in savings. maybe not being able to see his child is affecting his well being and enjoyment to life.

You might think lack of having a extended family or being a absent farther is comparable to those with severe disabilities and chronic illnesses who have significant care and mobility needs. I do not.

Maybe you should setup a charity for them or a political lobby group claiming they have the right to a quality of life equal to those with extended families or children.

In the mean time I will carry on being happy DLA exists and improves the lives of severely disabled people and you can carry on expressing indignation at what you perceive as the injustice of a world where you pay tax and a severely disabled person gets benefits and might be able to buy what you consider a luxury or might be able to acquire some savings.

missapril75

Johno100 wrote: »

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.

You are missing the full picture again. Not all of the capital attracts a tariff income.

£1 per £250 above the £6000 (nothing at all until £6k)

So the tariff on 6.5k is £2 or £104pa

For people above pension age it's £1 for multiples of £500 above £10000 (nothing at all on £10000)

Tariff on 10.5k is £2 or £104pa

Would you like to recalculate?

£104 pa is not 20%

FBaby

sparkycat2 wrote: »

You might think lack of having a extended family or being a absent farther is comparable to those with severe disabilities and chronic illnesses who have significant care and mobility needs. I do not.

You have misquoted me here. I have not made reference to severe disabilities or chronic illnesses. I have made it clear that I don't have an issue with DLA as a whole, but those who receive DLA but do not have costs associtated with their needs. I think of people like a friend who claims DLA because her daughter who is now 7 still wakes at night. She has a mild learning disability, but my friend admits that her DD still wakes up at night because she has never been bothered to make her go back to bed. She says that on one hand, she does wants her DD to get used to going to sleep in her own bed and get a proper night sleep, but at the same time, she knows that when that happens, she should report it and most likely will mean a reduction in her DLA. Her daughter getting up at night doesn't incur any extra costs. She has been honest that she uses the DLA to improve the lifestyle of her family, that includes the lifestyle of her other DD who doesn't have any disabilities. The thing is, as she says herself, it is hard to give up something that comes to you easily. This is a completely different scenario to someone who has severe needs for which they require costly support.

you can carry on expressing indignation at what you perceive as the injustice of a world where you pay tax and a severely disabled person gets benefits and might be able to buy what you consider a luxury or might be able to acquire some savings.

It is so annoying when people twist your words to make it sound like you are the most uncaring person. I have as much lack of sympathy to those who are in a situation to save significant amounts of their benefits as I have for those people severely disabled whose DLA payments will never meet the full cost of their disability.

FBaby

Muttleythefrog wrote: »

The thing is, is that DLA is merely an attempt by state to meet the obligations upon it regarding the human rights of the disabled. DLA is merely a token test... a very narrow test to get some measure of the severity of disability that people suffer in daily life. An amount of money is given... on the understanding that day to day disability will often mean extra expenses of day to day life in order to enjoy the standard expectations of life like going out, getting washed, having a cooked meal and socialising. And the claimant (or the parent in case of child) can spend as they choose.

I totally agree with you Muttley. The highlighted part is the one that I agree fully with, but others here seem to think that it should go beyond that and fund luxuries (saving being one of them). The reality is that in many cases, being able to go out, getting washed and having a cook meal and socialising doesn't come at an extra cost. I do understand what you say though about the cost of evaluating the actual costs for individual people, but it doesn't take away the fact that it makes DLA discriminatory in that some are getting money they don't need whilst others don't get enough.