Means tested benefits and being left things in will

seven-day-weekend

AFAIK you could, if your other circumstances hadn't changed.

You may find you then didn't have enough money to pay for the upkeep of it, but that's another issue.

real1314

donnalove wrote: »

i will answer this although it is off topic *again*

you are quoting ridiculours examples of people who are so rich that most of them have never done a hard days work in there life. If she is getting an inheritance that size she wouldn't need to claim benefits.

Also i have not said anyone should have a free income . would you like to quote where i said that?.

read it properly

I am saying that most older peeps don't want to see there hard earned money squandered by the government. so *there* choice would be to bequest it elsewhere if the origanal person they were bequesting it too *was* on benefits. I have not said to hide it so they can claim benefits.

i think you are forgetting that most of the people bequesting this money have worked hard and paid taxes(even on money saved) and many of them have never claimed a penny themselves from the state except there rightful pension.

It's no more off topic than your opinion on jumping through hoops to affect what happens to a legacy. You offered an opinion on the treatment of legacies. That's off topic - they didn't ask for your opinion.

Further:- I'm not saying you said they should get a free income. I asked a question. That is completely different. I wanted you to tell me what you thought about the scenario I stated. You say "older peeps don't want to see there hard earned money squandered by the government".

That's exactly the example I've shown could occur if this sort of apporach was taken. They are indeed older peeps, they have earned it (or inherited - their parent's earned it - or their parents' parents etc etc)...I take it you agree with me that this scenario shouldn't enable someone to get benefit?

In which case, you agree that people's hard earned legacy can and should be an obstacle to means tested benefits.

So what exactly is the point you are making? I say that a legacy should have an impact on someone's benefit - that taxpayers should not have to subsidise people via means tested benefits if they have adequate means to support themselves. You think I'm wrong, but you therefore need to draw a line in the level of legacy.

If £16,000 is not high enough (god, I wish me and the wife had £16k in the bank) then where is the level you think is ok? It's obviously not £50m.

This isn't personal, it's just a way of showing that there has to be a line somewhere - where would you draw it?

This could even turn into a poll??

seven-day-weekend

But I don'rt see how it is being 'squandered' by the Government.

I know someone on means-tested benefits (Family Income Supplement, the precursor to Tax Credits) who inherited a large lump sum. She was able to spend sum of it buying a car and a caravan for her large family to go on holiday in, and a few other things.

She then had to use it to subsidise her income until it fell within the threshold, at which time the family received their benefit again. The car and caravan were deemed acceptable expenditure.

So how exactly was it 'squandered' by the Government?

real1314

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

But I don'rt see how it is being 'squandered' by the Government.

I know someone on means-tested benefits (Family Income Supplement, the precursor to Tax Credits) who inherited a large lump sum. She was able to spend sum of it buying a car and a caravan for her large family to go on holiday in, and a few other things.

She then had to use it to subsidise her income until it fell within the threshold, at which time the family received their benefit again. The car and caravan were deemed acceptable expenditure.

So how exactly was it 'squandered' by the Government?

Well, the taxpayer must have "squadered" it by not paying enough tax to allow this person to keep their full benefits along with this amount of capital? Another 1p on income tax anyone?<irony off>.

seven-day-weekend

They didn't have their full benefits until they had under the threshold for capital. They had to use the capital (other than purchases which I've already mentioned) to subsidise their income until then.

I don't understand how you think it has been 'squandered' by anyone tbh.

real1314

read it again 7dw: - the <irony off> bit?

seven-day-weekend

I must have a sense of humour failure today then because I don't understand your post.

Unless you think I was saying they should have received full benefits whilst having all this capital? I wasn't saying that, I was just stating the facts.