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

sulkisu

tomtom256 wrote: »

No by plead poverty I mean he is already on means tested benefit by the look of the topic and is trying to hide his savings so that tariff income isn't taken into account and therefore doesn't have a pot to !!!! in so to speak, yet has managed to accrue nearly £6k in savings = doesn't need the benefit or am I missing something here.

I read OP's post differently. I thought he meant that he was about to claim means tested benefits and has savings, not that he has saved this £6k while on benefits.

Either way OP, many people just stick it under the mattress TBH. It doesn't earn interest but presumably the ability to claim benefit offsets this.

[Deleted User]

Owain_Moneysaver wrote: »

It's still capital though, and buying it with the intention of receiving benefits would be deprivation of capital.

actually no,buying gold wouldnt(unless you were buying excessive amounts)the odd pair of earings or bracelet here and their is fine
but like most things gold does go down as well as up,and you pay over the odds for jewellry as opposed to the actual scrap value

Fridge3

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

Yes I think you are.

What some of us are saying is that it is unfair if someone saves up and as a consequence loses benefit and those that spend spend spend get more money.

They don't lose benefit, they fail to gain it. They fail to gain it because they're not entitled. They're not entitled beacsue they have too much capital.

rogerblack

To address in more detail the answer to the original question I raised in the thread.

First, the legal arguments, then the policy ones.

I'm basing this off reading the capital rules many times, though I have not sat down and read them afresh for this.

To sum them up.
"A claimant has capital, in whatever form it's in.
If they attempt to give away, or conceal this capital, they may be treated as still having it."

However.
This is not quite what the original poster asked.
A common thread through all benefits is that you have income, and you have capital.
Income becomes capital after the period it is paid over.
So, if you are paid every 2 weeks, any unspent money after that period becomes capital.

But.

The above rules about deprivation of capital are just that, they are written in terms of depriving yourself of capital.

This might not apply to all possible schemes.
For example.

I set up a trust with a couple of trustees whos regulations are that it can only pay my utility bills, if I request it to.
I cannot request the money back, at any time, and I have to sign for every release of funds agreeing that I will not attempt to gain a refund of this money from the utility company, or the money from the trust is immediately repayable.

I then put say 30 quid a week _from_income_ - or whatever I have spare into this trust.

The deprivation of income rules do not bite - as I'm not trying to conceal the amount of income I receive.

The deprivation of capital rules do not bite, as I'm not depriving myself of capital. The money I pay into the trust is not capital, it is income.

It does not become capital that affects my capital limits, as I have no means of cashing this in.

Addressing the policy issue.
I would argue the right way to 'fix' this is to make it possible for claimants to simply (perhaps by some online means) not take a weeks money.

This would then be a per-claimant fund that could be accessed at any time, without penalty. Even if the claimant was no longer entitled to benefit.

It would however revert to the chancellor on death.

The advantages of this would be severalfold.

People could save considerably on benefits, allowing them more flexibility.

The government would have the cash in the meantime, rather than it being spent on plasma TVs.

A substantial portion of people would die with their savings in this form, so the government gets it all back.

POPPYOSCAR

Fridge3 wrote: »

They don't lose benefit, they fail to gain it. They fail to gain it because they're not entitled. They're not entitled beacsue they have too much capital.

????

We know this.

This is the system and one that is unfair to those who save and favours those that do not.

Who can blame someone for putting their money under the mattress
instead!!

Fridge3

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!

Perhaps they aren't of the mindset that they'll be claiming benefits.

Fridge3

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

????

We know this.

This is the system and one that is unfair to those who save and favours those that do not.

Who can blame someone for putting their money under the mattress
instead!!

Why unfair? Everyone has the choice to save or not. The person choosing to spend and get in debt may just as easily have regrets over that choice if, say their house is repo'd.

morganedge

should have been withdrawing regular amounts well before you got to the magic 6k mark. Keep it in a secret safe in cash.

POPPYOSCAR

Fridge3 wrote: »

Why unfair? Everyone has the choice to save or not. The person choosing to spend and get in debt may just as easily have regrets over that choice if, say their house is repo'd.

I know more than one person who has got into debt.

They still have their house and the vast majority of their debt has been written off using an IVA.


So I get the message, of spend, spend, spend and you will be taken care of.

Save and you will not.

rogerblack

morganedge wrote: »

should have been withdrawing regular amounts well before you got to the magic 6k mark. Keep it in a secret safe in cash.

This is clear benefit fraud, and the consequences if found out can be up to and including a prison term, in the extreme cases.