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

sparkycat2

Means tested benefits are for the poor needy going cap in hand to the society of which they are a part and in which they live, general taxation, for help. Society gives them enough to subsist survive if they are expected to be able to fend for themselves, so they have a large financial incentive to go get a job, and enough to live on long term if they are not expected to be able to fend for themselves.

They are not for people with the means of providing for themselves be that from income or savings. Because it is you being in need asking your neighbors fellow taxpayers to give you money.

The money is also not to enable people to save up thousands and thousands of pounds without limit, because many of your neighbors fellow taxpayers have meager savings.

I would use the money for what it is intended, living.

I do think the capital limits are unfair in that ownership of personal property does not count, but having people means tested on personal property was demeaning and distressing and viewed as a social evil.

I do think some means tested benefits like housing benefit and income support mortgage interest support and council tax benefit are unfair to those who have saved. Because they are not given as rights to all those eligible for non means tested contributions based benefits. In my opinion the NI system of contributions based benefits should provide more or equal financial support than the welfare safety net of means tested benefits paid out of general taxation, the main difference being time limiting for contributions based benefits for those expected to be able to fend for themselves get a job.

sparkycat2

BurnleyBob wrote: »

Perhaps he has an eye to what the coalition envisage Universal Credit will look like in 12 months time?

In right-wing press speak, the 'scrounging class' will then include millions of part-time workers who will be compelled to seek a minimum of 35 hours work per week. Tax Credits will become no more - and UC will be means-tested and with it more millions will then be concerned with the £6k and £16k thresholds.

Are you saying that Universal Credits equivalent of Working tax credits will unlike working tax credits be means tested on capital?

That those currently receiving working tax credits when it switches over to universal credits will start loose entitlement if they have more than £6k in savings and loose all entitlement if they have over £16k in savings?

enabledebra

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. I don't have enough capital to think about buying a house, or I would do that (I rent from a Housing Association at present).

There's no way of avoiding 'notional capital' rules if you transform capital into another form of capital which is disregarded in order to increase or gain entitlement to a benefit(s). Essentially, it's not where you put your capital, its why you put it there.

missapril75

Perspective?

The loss of a couple of quid a week income for exceeding £6000.

It's not something to get worked up about is it?

Mara69

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

And so he is penalised for being careful with his money instead of frittering it away.

Unfortunately, benefit lovers (as opposed to benefit haters) can't have it both ways. Either the benefit system is cripplingly low and people can barely survive (as it often claimed on here) or people are receiving enough in benefits to save a significant sum.

Glen_Clark

sparkycat2 wrote: »

Means tested benefits are for the poor needy going cap in hand to the society of which they are a part and in which they live, general taxation, for help. Society gives them enough to subsist survive if they are expected to be able to fend for themselves, so they have a large financial incentive to go get a job, and enough to live on long term if they are not expected to be able to fend for themselves.

They are not for people with the means of providing for themselves be that from income or savings. Because it is you being in need asking your neighbors fellow taxpayers to give you money.

The money is also not to enable people to save up thousands and thousands of pounds without limit, because many of your neighbors fellow taxpayers have meager savings.

I would use the money for what it is intended, living.

I do think the capital limits are unfair in that ownership of personal property does not count, but having people means tested on personal property was demeaning and distressing and viewed as a social evil.

I do think some means tested benefits like housing benefit and income support mortgage interest support and council tax benefit are unfair to those who have saved. Because they are not given as rights to all those eligible for non means tested contributions based benefits. In my opinion the NI system of contributions based benefits should provide more or equal financial support than the welfare safety net of means tested benefits paid out of general taxation, the main difference being time limiting for contributions based benefits for those expected to be able to fend for themselves get a job.

Good post. Only problem with that is the last sentence 'those expected to be able to fend for themselves get a job.' ATOS are clearly putting people into that category who should not be there. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/may/29/benefits-system-fit-for-work

Naf

woodbine wrote: »

has anyone pointed out that the tarriff on savings over 6000 is only £1 per £250 upto 16,000
e.g. 8000 savings would attract an £8 reduction in certain benefits per week

So what if your situation was that you only had £5 a week to spare, and that's what you were saving? (This presumes you must have had a higher income r lower outgoings at some previous point to save to that amount).
Again, its not really fair on someone who has saved vs. someone who has frittered it away.

sparkycat2 wrote: »

...they have a large financial incentive to go get a job, and enough to live on long term...

I'm sorry, they do neither of these things. It may well be the purpose behind them; but it does not work. Do you realise that once you work out the changes in benefit entitlements, someone going from JSA to full-time work on NMW can end up working for effectively 50p an hour, or even less? Or someone looking to better their financial situation with a pay rise at work can find that even a 5k salary increase only betters their situation by 10p an hour.
I've been there and done the maths myself; and its even worse for people who drop down from a reasonable income and end up on JSA or NMW - especially if their rent is in the top 70% of rents in their area (or, more likely, in the top 90%).
The system penalises people for where they were born, what social class they were born to, and what job they are able to get. It continues to penalise people for disability and lack of employment.
I'm of the opinion that what this country needs is a total collapse of the economy and currency so that everyone has to work back from the ground up. That's what the country needs, but clearly that would not be good for the most vulnerable.

sparkycat2

Mara69 wrote: »

Unfortunately, benefit lovers (as opposed to benefit haters) can't have it both ways. Either the benefit system is cripplingly low and people can barely survive (as it often claimed on here) or people are receiving enough in benefits to save a significant sum.

There is not just one benefit and everyone with the same set of personal circumstances.

At one extreme you have single people claiming Job Seekers Allowance, Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit. With significantly less than £71 a week to live on due to having to make up shortfall between rent and housing benefit, struggling to make ends meet. If they have any debts they accrued prior to becoming unemployed they maybe unable to make ends meet.

At the other extreme you have situations like someone say living in a sibling's household, who is unable to work and unable to live independently due to severe disability receiving SDA or IB or ESA, DLA, Income Support with premiums, Cold weather payments, free prescriptions. Who is receiving say £247.65 a week. Who due to having their care and mobility needs and housing costs (sibling owns home outright no mortgage/rent) met by their sibling's household, after paying a bit towards food and utility bills (possibly a token amount) has money left over to spend on things that improve their quality of life.

The level of benefits received, the level of outgoings on things like housing and the level of social support a person gets from family, friends and social services can vary massively.

speedfreek1000

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

BurnleyBob

sparkycat2 wrote: »

Are you saying that Universal Credits equivalent of Working tax credits will unlike working tax credits be means tested on capital?

That those currently receiving working tax credits when it switches over to universal credits will start loose entitlement if they have more than £6k in savings and loose all entitlement if they have over £16k in savings?

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).