Benefits to be replaced by loans!

antrobus

TELLIT01 wrote: »

That doesn't sound unreasonable, dependant on what the interest rate charged is.,,,

The interest rate is based on the 'gilt rate'. Forecast to be 1.7% for 2018. My guess would be that the gilt rate is the cost of the government borrowing the money that it is passing on to the claimant.

sargeantsalt

I think a few people are missing the point.

The reason the government chose SMI as the first target was that homeowners are disliked and envied.

There are many arguments why certain types of people should not receive handouts. Certainly enough arguments to drown out the bigger issue.

The idea of picking SMI is that the public / media will focus only on why it is unfair for people to 'profit' from property and totally miss the point that a line has been crossed.

The question is whether it is right for debts to be forced onto people as a replacement for benefits.

Why should any welfare recipient not have to repay the money they receive?

This is the thin edge of the wedge. A slippery slope.

Home owners today, everyone else tomorrow.

benidorm59

Also some people will lose a lot more. If the are say ESA conts and get SMI this gives them the IR element of ESA so entitles them to council tax benefit, free dentist prescriptions etc. When SMI goes to be replaced with the Loan then they will lose all the add ons as well.

antrobus

benidorm59 wrote: »

Also some people will lose a lot more. If the are say ESA conts and get SMI this gives them the IR element of ESA so entitles them to council tax benefit, free dentist prescriptions etc. When SMI goes to be replaced with the Loan then they will lose all the add ons as well.

The official line is;

With the removal of SMI as part of their benefit entitlement, some individuals will no longer be entitled to one of the income-related benefits because they have too much income. The regulations ensure that this group will be “treated as entitled” to one of those benefits to ensure that they remain eligible for SMI and they will be offered SMI loans. They will however lose entitlement to some pass-ported benefits where the sole qualifying criterion is receipt of one of the income-related benefits. We believe that the number of people affected will be very low. These claimants may still be able to get help via certain pass-ported benefit schemes where there is an alternative access route via a low income test.

tomtom256

IAmWales wrote: »

It's ok for a BTL landlord to profit, but an individual not to have their interest paid?

I recall you kicking up a right fuss over the bedroom tax, yet now you're happy to kick other disabled people because it doesn't affect you. Shame on you.

So what about those not on benefits that have to rent? Should a BTL LL not profit from that to or is that fair for a non-benefit renter to have the same issues?

maisie_cat

There is something to be said about requiring the repayment of benefits in better times, I know a women who claimed benefits for 20 years while pretending to be a single parent. She used the single parent claim to get a bursary and training on the NHS for 4 years. She had planned to skip the UK as soon as she qualified until she realised that she was contracted to stay with the NHS. She now earns something like £50k a year, and plans to leave the UK as soon as she can. The UK will never get back the £500k or so she's had from the system. If benefits were treated in a similar way to student loans it would mean that those who better themselves would be able to pay it forward.
Having said that Adele grew up on benefits I believe and then complained about having such high taxes on her millions so maybe people don't care to pay it forward!

parkrunner

If you've got a mortgage and are employed take out mortgage protection insurance.

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/mortgages/payment-protection-insurance

[Deleted User]

sargeantsalt wrote: »

2 years ago I predicted that the benefits system would be eventually replaced by a loan system where those who fall on hard times would receive money to live on that they would repay once they are better off.

Well, it has started. SMI benefit is being replaced by a loan system from April 2018 onward.
There will also be interest to pay on top.

My predictions for the future are:

1. More benefits will be replaced, e.g. jobseeker loans, rather than benefits.
2. At some point the claimants 'debts' will be sold on to debt collection companies for a fraction of their value and the claimants will be aggressively pursued for the money.

Debt should never be forced on anyone.

If you care, then write to your MP or start a petition.

Sorry OP but this rubbish would be a step too far for even a Tory govt.
What is likely/possible to happen in the future is a universal income i.e everybody will get an income of £x and all benefits inc pensions will be abolished as will all tax allowances, its already happening in a couple of countries and mp's seem keen on the idea. Just imagine all the DWP and HMRC staff they could cull and all the fraud that could be stopped It would be a win win situation.

teddysmum

venison wrote: »

Sorry OP but this rubbish would be a step too far for even a Tory govt.
What is likely/possible to happen in the future is a universal income i.e everybody will get an income of £x and all benefits inc pensions will be abolished as will all tax allowances, its already happening in a couple of countries and mp's seem keen on the idea. Just imagine all the DWP and HMRC staff they could cull and all the fraud that could be stopped It would be a win win situation.

Do you really think that people will work hard, in difficult circumstances ,perhaps after years of training (eg surgeon, soldier) while others have the same income for easy jobs (eg greeting people at a hotel's reception)and yet others,who are fit and healthy, choose not to work at all ?

nannytone_2

teddysmum wrote: »

Do you really think that people will work hard, in difficult circumstances ,perhaps after years of training (eg surgeon, soldier) while others have the same income for easy jobs (eg greeting people at a hotel's reception)and yet others,who are fit and healthy, choose not to work at all ?

you're misunderstanding how it works.

every man woman and child it paid the same benefit sum.
those who work would also have their earn income.

so a surgeon would still have a higher wage than a shop assistant .... that wouldn't change.

the money would be clawed back by doing away with the personal tax allowance meaning that tax would be paid from the first pound earn.

this would make the workshop think twice about earning their own money because they would really be much better off by working