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

MissMoneypenny

rogerblack wrote: »

why should it not be right for those at the bottom to maximise their income through legal means.

If "their income" is obtained from income based welfare payments; then they need to think about the people who are working to give them that "income"; instead of looking for ways to make those people give them even more money (known as 'maximising their welfare payments'). It's the "entitled to" class at their worst and they make it harder for the genuine claimants.

POPPYOSCAR

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

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.

I am quite happy for my taxes to pay for those in genuine need but I do think that someone with a small amount of savings such as this should not lose benefit because of it, for the reasons as stated many time before.

We should look to the ones working and claiming, and the ones with several claims for many made up children, the ones going from area to area getting council accommodation and letting them out.

We should not be letting the likes of Vodafone makes billions in this country and not pay a penny of tax here.

So forgive me if you will, I will not condemn some poor sod who has a few hundred pounds hidden away under the mattress.

And if you do not believe that I only receive family allowance and nothing else, feel free to read back my posts. I have been in business for over 20 years and live a very comfortable lifestyle having worked around the clock at times, have paid/pay my fair whack of tax along the way, so that now my future is secure.

And if we do not take on face value what people say in their posts what is the point of all this anyway?

sparkycat2

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.

I disagree not all benefits are designed to just provide a welfare safety net at subsistence level. Only enough to survive, pay for housing costs, utility bills, food. No ability to cope with large one off expenses like replacing a broken cooker or fridge, never able to redecorate the home or take a holiday or buy a luxury like a TV, great hardship involved in say buying new clothes or shoes.

Some benefits are designed for people to be on long term, and have lives entailing more than just subsistence survival. Those who are not expected to fend for themselves are expected to be able to live on benefits long term and have lives worth living including the ability to save up and buy things they want or need.

POPPYOSCAR

sparkycat2 wrote: »

I disagree not all benefits are designed to just provide a welfare safety net at subsistence level. Only enough to survive, pay for housing costs, utility bills, food. No ability to cope with large one off expenses like replacing a broken cooker or fridge, never able to redecorate the home or take a holiday or buy a luxury like a TV, great hardship involved in say buying new clothes or shoes.

Some benefits are designed for people to be on long term, and have lives entailing more than just subsistence survival. Those who are not expected to fend for themselves are expected to be able to live on benefits long term and have lives worth living including the ability to save up and buy things they want or need.

I quite agree.

I do not want the kind of society where we allow those that cannot fend for themselves to lead a life of constant hardship.

Naf

My opinion (not all of which might be very popular) is that the benefits system needs to be massively simplified, such as this:
-One benefit to bring everyone unemployed, including the disabled, up to the same relative total income based on average rents in their area. The total benefit set at such a level that all basic essentials are covered, luxuries & savings are out.
-Another benefit to bring all working individuals up to the same relative living income based on necessary amount for one person to live based on average rents in their area.
-A disability top up to either of those benefits, based on actual need of support/care.
-A family premium based on single/couple/kids.

The system is then much simplified; people can know exactly what total income they can expect depending solely upon if they work or not, and know exactly what earnings limit their benefit will cut out.

Something which occurred to me earlier is that the people who are most willing to spend money in this economic climate, are exactly those who the state is taking the money from and reducing their ability to pay back into the economy. Those with large savings seem to do little but hoard them and expect their amassed funds to 'work for them'.

EDIT: I'm also of the opinion all politicians ought to be paid only the NMW and be made to claim benefits like anybody else - actually using the system they create. The same savings limits should apply. Also, any additional work (anything else they receive money back for) should be considered a conflict of interest. Oh, and all expenses are out.

Johno100

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

I have some money to invest, can somebody tell me where I can get the rate of interest the government uses for this calculation?

rogerblack

Naf wrote: »

-One benefit to bring everyone unemployed, including the disabled, up to the same relative total income based on average rents in their area. The total benefit set at such a level that all basic essentials are covered, luxuries & savings are out.

The needs of the long-term disabled and the person on JSA for a relatively short period can differ quite a lot.

If you're on JSA, you can put off painting the front door till you're in work.

If you're disabled, at some point, you can't.

And what are luxuries?
I'm coming to realise that while I technically can cook many days, it often tires me greatly to the point I may be unable to do other things safely.
Is a healthy ready meal a luxury?
Is heating to an adequate level to not worsen a health condition a luxury?

Naf

rogerblack wrote: »

The needs of the long-term disabled and the person on JSA for a relatively short period can differ quite a lot.

If you're on JSA, you can put off painting the front door till you're in work.

If you're disabled, at some point, you can't.

And what are luxuries?
I'm coming to realise that while I technically can cook many days, it often tires me greatly to the point I may be unable to do other things safely.
Is a healthy ready meal a luxury?
Is heating to an adequate level to not worsen a health condition a luxury?

Hence the disability top up I suggested.
I did say it wouldn't necessarily be the most popular...

sparkycat2

Naf wrote: »

My opinion (not all of which might be very popular) is that the benefits system needs to be massively simplified, such as this:
-One benefit to bring everyone unemployed, including the disabled, up to the same relative total income based on average rents in their area. The total benefit set at such a level that all basic essentials are covered, luxuries & savings are out.
-Another benefit to bring all working individuals up to the same relative living income based on necessary amount for one person to live based on average rents in their area.
-A disability top up to either of those benefits, based on actual need of support/care.
-A family premium based on single/couple/kids.

The system is then much simplified; people can know exactly what total income they can expect depending solely upon if they work or not, and know exactly what earnings limit their benefit will cut out.

The essentials for those on short term benefits are different to those on long term benefits. What do you want to do increase things like JSA or decrease benefits people are expected to live on long term.

Do you want the unemployed to be able to live comfortably on benefits or do you want those unable to fend for themselves looking more disheveled unable to replace worn out clothes and shoes, living in more squalid conditions no ability to replace the broken cooker or fridge, or warn out furniture and carpet, or redecorate and generally more miserable not able to afford any luxuries at all to make their life seem more worth living. Effectively socially excluded from enjoying the benefits of our society because they are unable to fend for themselves, have not earned their share rather than being viewed as having worth in their own right to some quality of life beyond mere subsistence, worthy of being included as part of society.

Naf

sparkycat2 wrote: »

What do you want to do increase things like JSA or decrease benefits people are expected to live on long term

Unemployment benefits shouldn't be long term. They should be set at such a level that its possible to live, but not easy street, to give proper incentive to find work.

sparkycat2 wrote: »

Do you want the unemployed to be able to live comfortably on benefits

No, I don't. It might sound harsh, but people should be making a proper effort to provide for themselves.

I think that local authority and government positions which require little/no qualifications should be filled by the unemployed. The state pays their benefits, they should work P/T for the state. This would alleviate the bill footed by taxpayers for emptying bins, street sweeping etc. and probably increase the workforce available for such too. Something akin to the workfair scheme.