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

Naf

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

Yes, I was thinking exactly the same.

Just think of all the extra paperwork for the DWP and what that must cost to administer.

The other thing that occurs to me here, is that I don't really think that upping the savings cap would really make many more people eligible for benefits, or cost DWP (or any other benefit agency) very much more at all; as in my example might well cost less.

Mojisola

Enigmaman wrote: »

My savings are close to the £6,000 threshold. That is of course the point at which they begin to be treated as income in benefit calculations

I was wondering where I could invest in a legal way of avoiding capital being taken into account for benefits purposes.

You could buy a funeral plan. That way you wouldn't have to worry about earmarking a proportion of that 6k for your eventual send-off.

Naf

tomtom256 wrote: »

So lets just hand out a blank cheque and not have capital limits, everyone can claim and all problems solved

Not what I said; I preceded that with a comment about how little 16k can do for you these days. Also note my previous post suggesting that a mortgage deposit would be a reasonable limit (or maybe a DWP approved savings scheme towards a deposit that is not taken into account other than any accrued interest. Accessible in a crisis, at which point it could affect benefits, but otherwise solely for a house deposit.).
At 16k a person is stuck in the limbo I pointed out, because that isn't going to pay any reasonable deposit in most people's circumstances, so there just isn't really anything they could legitimately spend it on.

tomtom256

Naf wrote: »

Not what I said; I preceded that with a comment about how little 16k can do for you these days. Also note my previous post suggesting that a mortgage deposit would be a reasonable limit (or maybe a DWP approved savings scheme towards a deposit that is not taken into account other than any accrued interest. Accessible in a crisis, at which point it could affect benefits, but otherwise solely for a house deposit.).
At 16k a person is stuck in the limbo I pointed out, because that isn't going to pay any reasonable deposit in most people's circumstances, so there just isn't really anything they could legitimately spend it on.

They could legitimately spend it on life or everyday extras that people need which often fall by the way side when on benefits.

And like I said upto £16k they would still get benefits just at a reduced rate. A little give and take.

Naf

tomtom256 wrote: »

They could legitimately spend it on life or everyday extras that people need which often fall by the way side when on benefits.

But by saving up to 16k they've already shown that they don't/don't need to do this so technically & morally it would still be deprivation of capital.

tomtom256 wrote: »

And like I said upto £16k they would still get benefits just at a reduced rate. A little give and take.

Yes, so their benefits are reduced & so is the amount they can save.
As they still save, just less, their benefits are reduced yet further.
Eventually it meets & they are unable to save any more due to the level to which their savings were reduced, they have to spend their savings
Sound familiar...
- They save slowly & just creep over the 16k limit
- They lose some benefit & have to start spending your savings
- They get full benefits back

POPPYOSCAR

tomtom256 wrote: »

They could legitimately spend it on life or everyday extras that people need which often fall by the way side when on benefits.

And like I said upto £16k they would still get benefits just at a reduced rate. A little give and take.

But then why would anyone save when those savings have to be used when they then get less benefit!!

And as Naf pointed out they would then probably be spending the savings to supplement the loss of benefit and then be back to full benefit once this has gone below the threshold - it probably costs more to administer than is saved!

Mojisola

If you upgrade your household appliances to modern energy-efficient ones, your bills in the future will be lower - smaller bills, more money staying in your pocket.

barnaby-bear

BurnleyBob wrote: »

I can't post links but if you google 'UK food prices to rise by 15%' then you legally keep below the limit and hedge against food/consumables inflation. Consume tomorrow at today's prices.

There's masses of grub that'll remain edible for donkey's years... freeze dried stuff (potato, coffee, etc). I'm sure googling will also provide an endless list of other stuff that you could cram your cupboards and perhaps attic with. The way central banks are QE-ing like there's no tomorrow it's not hard to imagine that inflation will show up in a big way for all the things we need to survive in the not too distant future.

OMG - imagine a house full of teabags, and freeze dried potatoes £6ks worth - that gets an invasion of mice or weevils!!!!

tomtom256

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

But then why would anyone save when those savings have to be used when they then get less benefit!!

And as Naf pointed out they would then probably be spending the savings to supplement the loss of benefit and then be back to full benefit once this has gone below the threshold - it probably costs more to administer than is saved!

Surely the question how would they save.

As I previously said lets just sign a blank cheque, get rid of capital limits and all can claim.

If people on means tested benefit can save upto the capital limits then there are serious issues with claiming in the first place as it would be clear they did not need the money.

Just look at all the other topics regarding how little people get it does not make sense.

Regarding reclaiming, I don't make the rules but why shouldn't you pay your way if you have the savings. But now we appear to have gone off topic and round in circles.

POPPYOSCAR

tomtom256 wrote: »

Surely the question how would they save.

As I previously said lets just sign a blank cheque, get rid of capital limits and all can claim.

If people on means tested benefit can save upto the capital limits then there are serious issues with claiming in the first place as it would be clear they did not need the money.

Just look at all the other topics regarding how little people get it does not make sense.

Regarding reclaiming, I don't make the rules but why shouldn't you pay your way if you have the savings. But now we appear to have gone off topic and round in circles.

This is where I disagree with you.

Under this system there is no incentive to put some money behind you.

Why should someone who has saved hard and perhaps gone without, not receive the same amount of benefit as those that spend all they get.

I do not believe they should have to spend their savings before they can claim benefits or get less than someone who has blown all their money.