Universal credit and savings/capital

Blue22

edeneve wrote: »

But...the point is I work hard, I raise my kids single handed and no way could I afford even horse riding lessons for the kids, let alone save up enough money for a house or piece of land. If I had 20K sitting in bank then I would accept that I would have to live off it, not be able to keep it and claim benefits. All types of benefits are meant to cover the 'basics' .

But...from your post two days ago, you are a single Mum to 6 children, you work part time, from home, running an online business (nowhere near as demanding as being a foster parent!) and 'have a nice large house, practical car and a camper, which from May-October we go away in as often as possible' So it seems that you are having a comfortable life courtesy of our generous benefits system? I'm guessing with 6 children and HB you must be clearing £30K+ a year?

Pedent

Blue22 wrote: »

I can't believe how many spiteful, critical replies you have had and how little value everyone else has put on your 'job' as a full time foster carer. I would imagine that your household is contributing an awful lot more to the treasury and to society than any of those critics do and their opinions seem to be based on ignorance of what foster carers do and how much money they receive.

Just to put a number on this, placing a child with a foster family is about £100k/year cheaper than the alternative residential care (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/04/time_to_bring_back_childrens_h.html). With two children placed, the OP is saving taxpayers £200k/year. Puts any benefits claimed into perspective.

zoominatorone

Pedent wrote: »

Just to put a number on this, placing a child with a foster family is about £100k/year cheaper than the alternative residential care (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/04/time_to_bring_back_childrens_h.html). With two children placed, the OP is saving taxpayers £200k/year. Puts any benefits claimed into perspective.

It would be even cheaper if the rubbish parents took care of their kids better in the first place so that they didn't end up in care :mad:

plum2002

zoominatorone wrote: »

It would be even cheaper if the rubbish parents took care of their kids better in the first place so that they didn't end up in care :mad:

children don't always end up in care due to bad parenting, ill health and death factor in there too. 2 of the children fostered by friends of mine had their family home set alight, the father died whilst trying to rescue their youngest sibling, the mother died later in hospital, but of course, all the parents fault that the children are now in foster care!

paddedjohn

Pedent wrote: »

Just to put a number on this, placing a child with a foster family is about £100k/year cheaper than the alternative residential care (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/04/time_to_bring_back_childrens_h.html). With two children placed, the OP is saving taxpayers £200k/year. Puts any benefits claimed into perspective.

Those figures arent actually real, even with the kids in foster care the social workers are still employed and care homes and all the relevant expenses still have to be paid for so there isnt really a saving to be had. Its the same with prisons and hospital beds, you can say that it costs £100k per year to lock someone up but even if they were let off the costs of the prison still have to be met

zoominatorone

plum2002 wrote: »

children don't always end up in care due to bad parenting, ill health and death factor in there too. 2 of the children fostered by friends of mine had their family home set alight, the father died whilst trying to rescue their youngest sibling, the mother died later in hospital, but of course, all the parents fault that the children are now in foster care!

I dont think anyone has a problem with an example such as you ahve given, however some of the wastes of space these days that pass as "parents" are a disgrace. They breed and the poor kids are the ones to suffer for their parents' stupidity in life decisions.

saving-mad

We are in a similar position to the OP but we put our savings into a house as we have to live in this tied house with my husbands job, we temporally run the other house as a holiday cottage.
That is our security net as if anything happens with his job we have to move out.
Tax credits say the other house although run as a business is an asset and would need to basically be sold for us to live off the money.
Ok short term this is an option but long term they are going to make us live in rented accommodation all our lives, probably paying our rent for us when our money runs out.
We are lucky in that we don't drink, smoke, go out, have holidays or many electric gadgets, we have relatively low outgoings because of this and will do our best to get buy without selling our home to be. But I don't see how they can make us sell a business to live off the proceeds, what if i was a joiner for instance would they make me sell the lathe to live off?
I also think both our children will have left education before the new system comes in so we will not be entitled to much anyway.

MissMoneypenny

saving-mad wrote: »

We are in a similar position to the OP but we put our savings into a house as we have to live in this tied house with my husbands job, we temporally run the other house as a holiday cottage.
That is our security net as if anything happens with his job we have to move out.

That's great to have that security net; but income based benefits are returning to being for those who really need them. You own a lovely holiday cottage in the North York Moors and receive a rental income from that property.

You have been very lucky over the last few years as you have been able to claim income based benefits, even though you have substantial capital in an investment property. But the anomaly of claiming the income based benefit Tax Credits: without capital being taken into account: is ending.

The fact that benefits are still overly generous for some, can be addressed at a later stage.

saving-mad wrote: »

But I don't see how they can make us sell a business to live off the proceeds,

They won't. You can decide what you want to do with the home you own and rent out. However, you will not be able to get income based benefits as you have over 16K.

saving-mad wrote: »

what if i was a joiner for instance would they make me sell the lathe to live off?

Does your husband need this holiday home you own, to carry out his job?

sammyjammy

Pedent wrote: »

Just to put a number on this, placing a child with a foster family is about £100k/year cheaper than the alternative residential care (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/04/time_to_bring_back_childrens_h.html). With two children placed, the OP is saving taxpayers £200k/year. Puts any benefits claimed into perspective.

Not really, fostering is a choice and i don't think the OP is doing it for the benefit of the tax payer somehow.

saving-mad

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Does your husband need this holiday home you own, to carry out his job?

Thanks for replying but my point was we cannot run a holiday cottage business without a holiday cottage, that provides almost as much income as my husband earns.
As stated we have never frittered away àny money, largely due to help on this site!
I fully understand that the system has been kind to us, mainly as we have a disabled child, I would gladly swap all we have ever been given to see our child live a 'normal' life.