New baby for 40% tax payer: Any support?

365days

StormyWeather wrote: »

I didn't think the cars were free on motorbility. Don't they have to pay a monthly amount?

Motobility cars are given in exchange for High rate Mobility DLA.
So it's semantics really......yes you 'pay' your allowance to gain the car.

leveller2911

StormyWeather wrote: »

I didn't think the cars were free on motorbility. Don't they have to pay a monthly amount?

The payment comes from the qualifying benefit payment.They can choose to use the money for "mobility" so this may be taxis etc.When they choose to have a car I believe its for a 3yr term and then in many cases the car goes back to Motorbility and is then sold into the private sector.

Now some people say its "free" because unless their condition improves then they will have the use of a new car every 3 yrs for life. Others say the recipient pays for the car out of their benefit entitlement. Both I believe are correct.

As I mentioned before I'm not against the Scheme but its a wasteful scheme. All political parties agree there are problems with it but if the Coalition address the problems Nu-labour will have a field day. Thats the problem with Socialism everyone has everything they need but with no plan as to who pays for it.

Just to add I'm not a Tory either, I don't trust any of the parties. If anyone wants to know my ideology then look up a man called John Lilburne and the Levellers.;)

princessdon

I have always said I don't get this take a bit of tax and pay more in benefits, far better reduce their tax and lower benefits, many will still be tax payers, but you can't really say I'm a tax payer when often they get more back than their tax.

nannytone_2

to continue that line of thinking...
if all people that CANNOT work due to disability should only receive food, shelter and warmth, then surely someone who is capable of working but isnt for whatever reason. sjould receive nothing as they can build their own shelter, light their own fire and catch their own food?

how ridiculous

chrisbythesea

There are already people who don't get enough in benefits to cover their basic needs. People on JSA who have mortgages would be an example of this.

365days

chrisbythesea wrote: »

There are already people who don't get enough in benefits to cover their basic needs. People on JSA who have mortgages would be an example of this.

There are many single parents I know, myself included, who have their own houses (mortgaged).

I get no 'help' with the mortgage. And nor should I you may say. However if I was to sell up and rent (after a short period where the equity was spent) I would be given housing benefit/LHA call it what you will of an amount that is far, far more than my interest payments and I live in a house 1 bedroom bigger than I would be entitled to rent.

Hopefully the new UC as I understand it does give some recognition to low earners who are mortgaged. I will be able to earn £500 more a month before tapering than someone who is in the same position but getting housing element.

Knowing my luck it will come in just in time for me to be no longer eligible.

If you are on JSA, and from your work record it can be seen that it is likely to be a short term issue, why shouldn't the mortgage be paid up to the equivalent cost that you would recieve in housing benefit/LHA ?

I would actually argue that even for folk on ESA if the interest element of their mortgage is less than the market rent, let them stay in their house and at least their family will benefit from it in the future rather than some greedy landlord.

365days

nannytone wrote: »

to continue that line of thinking...
if all people that CANNOT work due to disability should only receive food, shelter and warmth, then surely someone who is capable of working but isnt for whatever reason. sjould receive nothing as they can build their own shelter, light their own fire and catch their own food?

how ridiculous

There's a thought. If you change isn't working to won't work I could see it catching on!

leveller2911

365days wrote: »

There are many single parents I know, myself included, who have their own houses (mortgaged).

I get no 'help' with the mortgage. And nor should I you may say. However if I was to sell up and rent (after a short period where the equity was spent) I would be given housing benefit/LHA call it what you will of an amount that is far, far more than my interest payments and I live in a house 1 bedroom bigger than I would be entitled to rent.

Hopefully the new UC as I understand it does give some recognition to low earners who are mortgaged. I will be able to earn £500 more a month before tapering than someone who is in the same position but getting housing element.

Knowing my luck it will come in just in time for me to be no longer eligible.

If you are on JSA, and from your work record it can be seen that it is likely to be a short term issue, why shouldn't the mortgage be paid up to the equivalent cost that you would recieve in housing benefit/LHA ?

I would actually argue that even for folk on ESA if the interest element of their mortgage is less than the market rent, let them stay in their house and at least their family will benefit from it in the future rather than some greedy landlord.

I don't disagree with this except to say that currently with the mortgage (SMI) payments the interest rate is set at 3.63% so people with tracker mortgages are actually having the interest and some of the capital paid off by the taxpayer. It should be adjusted monthly.

princessdon

365days wrote: »

There are many single parents I know, myself included, who have their own houses (mortgaged).

I get no 'help' with the mortgage. And nor should I you may say. However if I was to sell up and rent (after a short period where the equity was spent) I would be given housing benefit/LHA call it what you will of an amount that is far, far more than my interest payments and I live in a house 1 bedroom bigger than I would be entitled to rent.

Hopefully the new UC as I understand it does give some recognition to low earners who are mortgaged. I will be able to earn £500 more a month before tapering than someone who is in the same position but getting housing element.

Knowing my luck it will come in just in time for me to be no longer eligible.

If you are on JSA, and from your work record it can be seen that it is likely to be a short term issue, why shouldn't the mortgage be paid up to the equivalent cost that you would recieve in housing benefit/LHA ?

I would actually argue that even for folk on ESA if the interest element of their mortgage is less than the market rent, let them stay in their house and at least their family will benefit from it in the future rather than some greedy landlord.

Sadly it's the opposite, mortgagees are to be hit hard, with zero entitlement to SMI if earring a low wage, they are also looking to restrict to 2 years for other groups. None sensible to me for the reasons you state.

365days

princessdon wrote: »

Sadly it's the opposite, mortgagees are to be hit hard, with zero entitlement to SMI if earring a low wage, they are also looking to restrict to 2 years for other groups. None sensible to me for the reasons you state.

Will this not be covered by the UC though. As I understand it everyone will have a base award and housing element. This then gets tapered off as you earn. Homeowners don't start tapering until they earn £500 more than tenants.

This is how I understand it and could be completely wrong.