Attendance allowance /carers allowance

jlawrence

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

If their income is enough, yes they will. State Pension is taxable.

I don't see why contributory Benefits such as State Pension should be means-tested. You have already contributed through your NI. Or would you rather that yet again those who haven't paid in get it and those who have, don't?

That is not entirely correct. Credits which are awarded due to claiming a relevant benefits, or having caring responsibilities or simply looking after children count towards the pension. These credits are not awarded because you have paid anything in, but more often because you have taken out of the system.

jlawrence

margaretclare wrote: »

You are obviously well-informed as to the intentions of 'one political party or another'. You use the phrases 'in my opinion' and 'no doubt'. Can one deduce that you have the ear of the various politicians on the national stage at the moment?

I've heard different politicians talking, most of them I don't agree with, but I haven't come across this proposal before. I belong to a minority party and it is not part of our manifesto.

If a pensioner was in the higher tax bracket I would doubt whether they would bother to claim AA. It is something that has to be claimed, which is not the case for other benefits e.g. winter fuel allowance.

We will see, we will see. But I for one will be voting for the party that changes the welfare system to such an extent that millionaires and others that earn a sufficient salary to take them over the amount needed that they need to live on (means tested) are given the same level of benefits as those who are on the bread line so to speak.

NYM

jlawrence wrote: »

Hi, to be honest I don't know other than it was the only way that the bank would lend us the £100,000.

I'm sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense to me. You didn't need a Bank loan you already had the funds. There must have been an incentive that encouraged you to tie-up your money.

The Bank may not be charging interest on the loan providing you keep your money in the linked account but of course they are not paying you any interest on your deposited funds.

The Bank can't lose.

Indie_Kid

Don#t feed the troll

jlawrence

NYM wrote: »

I'm sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense to me. You didn't need a Bank loan you already had the funds. There must have been an incentive that encouraged you to tie-up your money.

The Bank may not be charging interest on the loan providing you keep your money in the linked account but of course they are not paying you any interest on your deposited funds.

The Bank can't lose.

I can only repeat it once again, the decision was based on advice given to us by the EA. I don't understand much about this so you leave it to those that do and you trust them.

cbrown372

jlawrence wrote: »

That is not entirely correct. Credits which are awarded due to claiming a relevant benefits, or having caring responsibilities or simply looking after children count towards the pension. These credits are not awarded because you have paid anything in, but more often because you have taken out of the system.

Did you get credits when imprisoned for benefit fraud?

margaretclare

jlawrence wrote: »

We will see, we will see. But I for one will be voting for the party that changes the welfare system to such an extent that millionaires and others that earn a sufficient salary to take them over the amount needed that they need to live on (means tested) are given the same level of benefits as those who are on the bread line so to speak.

And which party would that be? I have not heard this policy change mentioned by any of our political opponents.

You are very exercised about 'millionaires'. I have mentioned before - there is a huge spectrum of pensioners who are tax-payers, long before you get up to the millionaires.

DH and I are not on the bread-line. We are taxpayers in retirement but we are very far from being millionaires. I don't know any millionaires. I know one or two people who are high-earners and therefore higher rate taxpayers, but from my point of view, they have earned every penny of it and I don't grudge them.

How many millionaires do you know, and why are you so upset about them?

KxMx

FBaby wrote: »

No one complained when child benefit became mean tested.

Don't know about that, saw a fair few middle class yummy mummies in the press whining, that despite their large house/cars/foreign holidays they use child benefit to buy their kids shoes and are hard up, the clear hint being they wouldn't be able to afford shoes for their kids once the CB goes...

:rotfl:

jlawrence

cbrown372 wrote: »

Did you get credits when imprisoned for benefit fraud?

Hi, I have no idea and didn't even think of asking.

jlawrence

margaretclare wrote: »

And which party would that be? I have not heard this policy change mentioned by any of our political opponents.

You are very exercised about 'millionaires'. I have mentioned before - there is a huge spectrum of pensioners who are tax-payers, long before you get up to the millionaires.

DH and I are not on the bread-line. We are taxpayers in retirement but we are very far from being millionaires. I don't know any millionaires. I know one or two people who are high-earners and therefore higher rate taxpayers, but from my point of view, they have earned every penny of it and I don't grudge them.

How many millionaires do you know, and why are you so upset about them?

I'm not, it is a figure of speech. Anyone for any reason that is in receipt of an income that exceeds the basic amount needed to live on should be treated as disregarded for all welfare benefits - they clearly don't actually need the extra.
I refer back to the Irishman who won millions on the Lottery yet still demanded that his DLA award for mobility continues to fund a new car every 3 years.
Please explain why Brown and Cameron needed the extra from DLA for their respective children? Were they so broke that it made a difference?