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

sparkycat2

Naf wrote: »

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.

Especially since contributions based unemployment benefit has fallen relative to average earnings. As a percentage of Average Earnings. September 1971 20.9% . April 2010 10.9% for 25+ year olds, 8.7% for under 25 year olds. While means tested benefits are topped up with provision for housing costs by Housing benefit or Income support mortgage interest support and by Council Tax Benefit.

Naf wrote: »

I'm sorry, they do neither of these things. It may well be the purpose behind them; but it does not work.

I do not see job vacancies going unfilled. There are conditionality and sanctions regimes as well as relative poverty, while for those in work with families there are tax credits to top up wages.

Long term JSA claimant numbers
Long term JSA 2+ years Feb 2010 60,000 drop from 140,000 in 2000. down about 57%
Long term JSA 5+ years Jan 2011 4,220 drop from 47,000 Jan 2000. down about 91%

What I see is lack of jobs rather than culture of dependency.

As for those not expected to fend for themselves. I do not see many severely disabled, elderly, or children in significant real poverty unable to enjoy any quality of life. Although with welfare reforms I expect to see increasing real poverty amongst those reliant on benefits, especially with the changes to housing benefit, council tax benefit and the introduction of ESA and PIP.

Naf wrote: »

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.

The taper rates are a problem, but I see it as a problem caused by low wages and high housing costs. The taper is suppose to be what Universal Credit tackles. But if getting to keep at least 35% (24% after NI) of any increase in earnings, is enough reward for those in low paid jobs is in my opinion doubtful.

Naf wrote: »

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.

The problem in my view is increasing income and wealth disparity. With those on benefits or in low paid employment being much further below the average earnings index than they used to be.

Low wages and increasing housing costs resulting in housing benefit and council tax benefit as means tested benefits on income and savings, being paid to the low paid, and tax credits as a means tested on income "benefit" to low paid workers with families.

Working should provide a living wage, and a route out of poverty. Not reliance on state means tested support. Especially when the means tested support results even with Universal credit in you only get to keep 35% (24% after NI) of a increase in earnings.

sparkycat2

BurnleyBob wrote: »

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.

Gee I did not realize that. Have just looked it up. They are creating more discentives to those on low pay to save.

Capital rules in Universal Credit mean that families with more than £16,000 of financial capital will not be entitled to any Universal Credit at all. This is no change from the current means-tested benefits, but a dramatic change from tax credits, where a similar amount of savings would merely reduce tax credits awards by, at most, £1.42 a week.

Unearned income will reduce Universal Credit payments pound-for-pound, a rate which is identical to that in the current set of means-tested benefits, but higher than currently applies under tax credits.

How are they going to work the "no current recipient of benefits or tax credits will lose out at the point of transition to Universal Credit" transitional protection?

margaretclare

I'm confused at the amounts I see mentioned on these threads: £6K, £10K, £23K?

sparkycat2

margaretclare wrote: »

I'm confused at the amounts I see mentioned on these threads: £6K, £10K, £23K?

If you are talking about universal credits I think it is going to depend on what they decided on in the end, the £16k figure would be bringing it in line witht the cut off for means tested DWP beneftis for working age claimants.

There are lots of different capital limits for different benefits and national government and NHS schemes.

Including

£6K savings is the point for working age claimants that Income support and Housing Benefit starts to make deductions. At £16k savings any remaining entitlment is lost.

£10k savings is the point for those who are pensioners that Pension credits and Housing Benefit starts to make deductions.

Home care in England has lower savings limit of £14,250. Any savings above this start deductions. With the upper savings limit being £23,250.

NHS low income scheme is capital under £16,000 (£23,250 if living in a care home) to qualify.

BurnleyBob

margaretclare wrote: »

I'm confused at the amounts I see mentioned on these threads: £6K, £10K, £23K?

It is confusing. Some thresholds only relate to those of pensionable age.

What's certain is that Universal Credit will be a paradigm shift for those of working age in the years ahead.

I know several in-work people who would be shocked and insulted to be told that they are benefit recipients, such is the stigma that's been attached to the B word thanks primarily to media propaganda and Jeremy Kyle's guests.

There must be hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of workers who have at least £6k in capital and savings who also receive Tax Credits to help them get by that are currently unaffected but will be when UC is introduced as means-tested.

MissMoneypenny

If the OP gets such generous welfare payments that he can save, then clearly, these payments are too high in the first place; and that should be addressed.

To those who think it is then ok for the OP to hide these savings to maximise their future income based welfare payments; shame on you. You seem to have no gratitude to the people who are working hard, to pay for your welfare payments in the first place! Try being grateful to these people who keep you, instead of trying to rip them off.

rogerblack

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

To those who think it is then ok for the OP to hide these savings to maximise their future income based welfare payments; shame on you. You seem to have no gratitude to the people who are working hard, to pay for your welfare payments in the first place! Try being grateful to these people who keep you, instead of trying to rip them off.

I'm coming from this from a slightly different perspective.

Firstly - given that our lords and masters are quite happy and judge it right that it is possible for them to minimise the amount of tax of all forms down to almost nothing, and treat it like a fun game, why should it not be right for those at the bottom to maximise their income through legal means.

Secondly, from a perspective of someone who is disabled, and is unlikely to get better in the near term.

My disabilitiy is unlikely to get better. (it's been largely static for 20 years, and while of course there could be a dramatic recovery, this seems unlikely at this point).

The current and future rounds of reductions in entitlement scare me horribly.
My condition may not change.
My benefit entitlement may, through either being assessed to have magically gotten better, to criteria for getting benefit changing, to the government randomly deciding that people who've been on benefit for a long time are no longer entitled to some of it.

At the moment, I'm sort-of-managing, but not something anyone could call well.
'Living in squalor' is not a phrase I would use, but it was used of me.
I'm terrified that being required to do extra activities will result in a relapse, as has happened in the past.
This would lead to me being unable to fill in any forms, nevermind other things like washing, cooking, or other tasks.

I have extra costs, from being unable to drive, and sometimes cope with busses.
This means a trip to town and back to the jobcentre can cost 30 quid.
Stuff gets broken due to me being unable to decide that I can't do things safely, ...

POPPYOSCAR

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

If the OP gets such generous welfare payments that he can save, then clearly, these payments are too high in the first place; and that should be addressed.

To those who think it is then ok for the OP to hide these savings to maximise their future income based welfare payments; shame on you. You seem to have no gratitude to the people who are working hard, to pay for your welfare payments in the first place! Try being grateful to these people who keep you, instead of trying to rip them off.

Why do you assume that the people saying that are being kept by others?

MissMoneypenny

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

Why do you assume that the people saying that are being kept by others?

1. Because the people who pay for the welfare claimants are quite happy to pay for those in genuine need, but are not happy to pay for those that look to abuse the system.

2.Posters can claim to be whatever they want to be on an internet forum; but their postings usually give them away at some point.

niggyp

im with the op, why is it right that someone who literally pees their money up the side of a wall get everything thats going when someone who is sensible and saves gets penalised for being sensible

wonder if its time to buy a fireproof safe or look into a bank safety deposit box...or the gold idea...im spending mine on a new car, screw the government!!!

if you have children then open up a kids isa for em, old !!!!!! turpin cant touch that!