Tax Credits becoming Universal Credit

KennyPalin

yes marker im very well off with a £20,000 ish joint income, £1000 a month mortgage and £70,000 of negative equity, thanks for your kind words.

Marker_2

KennyPalin wrote: »

yes marker im very well off with a £20,000 ish joint income, £1000 a month mortgage and £70,000 of negative equity, thanks for your kind words.

Tax credits is not there to subsidize someone who buys an expensive house with an expensive mortgage when they only earn £20k.

But your more fortunate than most. Your mother has gifted you a mortgage free home, and is even paying YOU, the person she gifted this house to £400pm. Even though the latter is complete BS you have inherited a mortgage free home. You are more fortunate than most. You are in a good enough position for one of you to be a stay at home parent. Sell the house.

KennyPalin

marker i know you are trolling here but i'll bite anyway, nowhere did i say that tax credits were there to subsidize anything, Im perfectly entitled to cliam them under current rules and like everyone else in this position i appreciate recieving them. All i was asking in my original post is if i will lose them or not under the new rules with universal credit. Im not whinging or complaining just looking clarification. I really cant see whats with the attitude and wild presumptions about my personal situation.

benefitbaby

‘The Government will provide cash protection to claimants whose Universal Credit award would be less than under the old system, in the form of an extra amount to make up the difference between the old and the new. The maximum amount will be fixed at the point of change...the cash protection amount will not be uprated over time along with the rest of the entitlement, and the protection will stop if a claimant ceases to claim Universal Credit or has to be reassessed for a significant change of circumstances.’ Increases in UC (eg, on uprating) will not increase the total amount paid until the extra amount has been used up.

The following will be regarded as significant changes of circumstance: a partner leaving the household; a sustained (three-month) earnings drop beneath the level of work in the claimant commitment; a sustained (three month) increase in earnings which would lift the claimant out of UC; the UC claim ending; the loss or gain of any elements that make up the UC award – eg, the childcare element or the housing element.

Universal Credit Briefing Note, ‘Transitional Protection’, DWP, 4 July 2012

Dunroamin

KennyPalin wrote: »

yes but marker whats the relevance my mothers income or inheritence tax situation?

i asked a question about tax credit/universal credit, people seem more interested in asking me irrelevant questions that answering the original question. If people arent prepared to help then maybe saying nothing is the best policy?

I fail to see how a question about your income is irrelevant to the issue of working tax credits.

enabledebra

The proposed 'roll out' of Universal credit in Oct 2013 to all areas and all affected benefits is now limited to another few areas and JSA claimants only. Tax credits aren't disappearing in April 2014 as they said. The IT has been scrapped and they are starting from scratch. (Only £3m down the drain) It will be 2017 at the earliest on current gov statements. But apparently that was always the plan (no it wasn't)

FBaby

Playing devils advocate on this one -from someone who isn't concerned and lack knowledge on the matter!- why are people who have chosen to invest in property as their pension penalised compared to those who invest in a private pension? It is correct isn't it that if you pay towards a private/employer's pension, not only you won't penalised by UC, but if the rules remain the same than with tax credits, these can be deducted from one's total income. Yet someone who invest the same amount towards a property to secure them after retirement won't be entitled to anything.

Or have I missed something?

Pedent

FBaby wrote: »

Playing devils advocate on this one -from someone who isn't concerned and lack knowledge on the matter!- why are people who have chosen to invest in property as their pension penalised compared to those who invest in a private pension? It is correct isn't it that if you pay towards a private/employer's pension, not only you won't penalised by UC, but if the rules remain the same than with tax credits, these can be deducted from one's total income. Yet someone who invest the same amount towards a property to secure them after retirement won't be entitled to anything.

Or have I missed something?

With a pension, you can't access your investment until you're approaching retirement age.

With property, you can cash in your investment any time you like.

The government doesn't trust people, so makes its various incentives to save for retirement conditional on you putting your investments where you can't access them early, i.e. in a pension.

princessdon

KennyPalin wrote: »

yes marker im very well off with a £20,000 ish joint income, £1000 a month mortgage and £70,000 of negative equity, thanks for your kind words.

That's your choice to buy a house you can't afford then make a lifestyle choice of being a SAHP and expect parents like me who work to pay.

Universal credit may be delayed but it's well awaited and they can easily implement the capital limits for tax credits.

People don't see tax credits as benefits, they are and as such should have always had capital limits imposed.

I resent paying my taxes to people with thousands of pounds who make lifestyle choices.

KennyPalin

princessdon

where did i ask for your opinion about my "lifestyle choice"

i asked a question regarding Universal Credits, if you are unable to answer it or help why bother replying?