Tax Credits becoming Universal Credit

FBaby

Pedent wrote: »

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.

But that is very unfair to those who really do make the investment for the purpose of a pension fund. I have friends who are both self-employed and they bought a property purely for this purpose. Of course, if something unexpected were to happen, they could have access to it, in which case they should lose all right to benefits. Afterall, many pension schemes allow them to claim early in case of ill health. What's the difference?

princessdon

KennyPalin wrote: »

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?

It's been answered, you won't get means tested benefits (which tax credits are), as they ate bringing tax credits in line with other benefits.

The govt has finally worked out we don't have the cash to pay thousands in benefits to wealthy people.

It's why they stopped child benefit

It's also why pensions and other benefits will no doubt follow.

You have a few years to adjust unless something means a change in circumstances.

KennyPalin

Princessdon thank you for your reply, that all makes sense

as i said earlier im not complaining about govt policy, i was just looking clarification.

i do resent people suggest being a stay at home parent is a lifestyle choice, for some it may be but for us it certainly isnt as apart from an elderley mother we have absolutely no other close family living in the UK to offer support.

princessdon

KennyPalin wrote: »

Princessdon thank you for your reply, that all makes sense

as i said earlier im not complaining about govt policy, i was just looking clarification.

i do resent people suggest being a stay at home parent is a lifestyle choice, for some it may be but for us it certainly isnt as apart from an elderley mother we have absolutely no other close family living in the UK to offer support.

My parents live 100 miles away, sorry but when people have often more than 1 child then expect tax credits to pick up the bill it's lifestyle.

I'm a huge supporter of people being able to have the choice to SAHP, I would love to see it like other EU countries where depending on your taxes prior you get a long maternity at often full pay or longer maternity (3 year) on lower pay.

What I find hard personally, is those families often above the TC threshold on one wage, who can't save a penny, working jobs where they hardly see each other, paying a fortune in childcare, very stressed, who are not given that choice. They won't get help so have no choice but to work. It's not a choice for many, then they pay taxes for those who funded for SAHP.

Ok - it's based on income. But if they have a few hundred K, in the bank and own homes or holiday homes, it then becomes an unjust system.

KennyPalin

yes princessdon i understand your point and agree to an extent, the system in certain unevenly stacked against certain people and nobody in govt seems to be listening or care. I disagree with you point of it being a lifestyle choice though, certainly in my case it was not, i would have chosen to be a stay at home parent regardless of tax credits being available or not, my take home pay after deductions would have been less than what i would have spent on childcare. The fault does not lie with people who recieve tax credits but with the govt who have made them too generous or not means tested. As i said originally i was not complaining about the change in policy just looking clarification.

Pedent

FBaby wrote: »

But that is very unfair to those who really do make the investment for the purpose of a pension fund. I have friends who are both self-employed and they bought a property purely for this purpose. Of course, if something unexpected were to happen, they could have access to it, in which case they should lose all right to benefits. Afterall, many pension schemes allow them to claim early in case of ill health. What's the difference?

The difference is that they could cash in the asset on a whim, to pay for holidays, extensions, cars, school fees, etc. They haven't restricted their access to the investment at all.

The government offers you a deal: in exchange for putting your investment beyond reach until you're approaching retirement (so that you're better able to provide for yourself in retirement rather than depending on the state), you can receive certain benefits now (tax relief, and having your investment disregarded when it comes to benefits means testing).

If you aren't willing to put your investments beyond reach now, then that's fine, but you haven't done what the government wants to incentivise you to do, which is commit your resources to paying for your retirement, so you don't get the incentive.

Marker_2

Kenny,

Firstly I am not a troll. You only presume I am because I have questioned you.

Secondly, You currently own 1 house, that is a huge accomplishment (thank your mum) I doubt you will state how much its worth as its none of my business but it could range between £100k - £350k, lucky you. And despite being in negative equity in your current home, your on your wage to owning two homes, again lucky you. My sympathy regarding the mortgage is limited. On £16k your wife barely brings home just over a grand to cover the mortgage. Highly irresponsible IMO.

Thirdly, I will be returning to work soon following second baby. I'm fortunate that I have family around (didn't for a number of years due to following my husbands work around) but even though I have family close by now. Surprisingly they all work. SO I have to pay for a childminder like many others. My husband alone makes double what your wife does, but so we can own our own house and enjoy a bit of what life has to offer I have to work. And we get no help for it at all. Count yourself extremely lucky that despite an income of £20,500, the many state top ups and the two houses you own, you don't have to work.

Lastly, this is a public forum, to join this site you have to pass the robot test to register. If the robot test wasn't there then you would get robotic answers. However because robots aren't allowed on this site you are going to get responses from real people in real life. People have emotions, feelings, experience etc. All that will naturally come into any response.

atlantis187

KennyPalin

Please ignore some of the nasty unhelpful comments on here.
I asked a similar question a couple of months back and all Igot thrown back at me was abuse like 'how dare I claim any money from the state'

What you will there are alot of nasty jealous people on here.

Dunroamin

FBaby wrote: »

But that is very unfair to those who really do make the investment for the purpose of a pension fund. I have friends who are both self-employed and they bought a property purely for this purpose. Of course, if something unexpected were to happen, they could have access to it, in which case they should lose all right to benefits. Afterall, many pension schemes allow them to claim early in case of ill health. What's the difference?

Isn't this what happens now?

FBaby

Dunroamin wrote: »

Isn't this what happens now?

It is and that is of course right that it should, so no issue that it should continue, but still don't think it is fair that capital should be taken into account with UC in all circumstances. I think that if couple could make a good case that they are keeping a house as a pension investment they should still be able to claim, or allow to put this investment 'beyond reach' as it seems to be the term.