Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Jobseekers Allowance - Unfair For Savers


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#1 dave

dave

    HPC Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 342 posts

Posted 31 December 2004 - 03:49 PM

I was speaking to a friend who is saving to buy a place in the near future. He has stayed home with his family even after he got married, quite acceptable within the asian community. Young couples tend to stay at home, hopeing to leapfrog into a home than can comfortably afford.

He is now between jobs and wants to claim jobseekers allowance. Which is apparantly means tested, and with nearly 35k saved up, he is only likely to get his national insurance contributions paid. Had he already owned a house, which would be worth considerably more than his savings, he would be more likely get more benefits than he would get now. I know they look towards your house as capital, and this could affect any claim, but I think it unlikely they will ask someone to sell there house and live of the proceeds, as the government will only have to re-house them anyway.

I believe the current benefits threshold of saving allowance is 6k, after that, it will start affecting the amount of benefits received. They need to raise this considerably for non-homeowners.

#2 zzg113

zzg113

    I live on HPC!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,042 posts

Posted 31 December 2004 - 03:58 PM

with nearly 35k saved up


Um, frankly, with £35,000 in the bank I should think he's got quite enough not to need to claim JSA, especially as he is living at home.

Had he already owned a house, which would be worth considerably more than his savings, he would be more likely get more benefits than he would get now. I know they look towards your house as capital, and this could affect any claim


I think you've got it the wrong way round. I know when my Dad had a spell of umemployment a couple of years back, he couldn't claim jack-sh*t because he was a home-owner.

Why is he even claiming any benefits at all?
Al Greenspan, who facilitated the birth of world-wide HPI with irrationally exuberant interest rates

mortgage

#3 SHERWICK

SHERWICK

    I live on HPC!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,482 posts

Posted 31 December 2004 - 03:59 PM

Why is he even claiming any benefits at all?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Answer: because he can!
The mighty neo liberal steam roller that crushed all before it from the 1980s to the beginning of the new millennium has morphed in recent years into a Charlie Carioli clown car that now can not go two yards without loud bangs, smoke pouring out of the engine and the doors dropping off. (by stormymonday_2011, posted amidst the Barclays Libor crisis on 02/07/2012)

Polster: why did you vote labour?
Labour voter: because I hate Margaret Thatcher
Polster: how old were you when she left Downing st?
Labour voter: 3
(by Robo1968, posted 10/05/2010)

From BBC HYS 15/05/2009:
"Last year, my MP's second home claim was 5,000 more than my total salary and now I find out that he's trying to charge me for cleaning his swimming pool!"

"Whatever your argument it's wrong." bendy, 21/02/2014

#4 Dicky

Dicky

    HPC Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,368 posts

Posted 31 December 2004 - 04:00 PM

He is now between jobs and wants to claim jobseekers allowance. Which is apparantly means tested, and with nearly 35k saved up, he is only likely to get his national insurance contributions paid. Had he already owned a house, which would be worth considerably more than his savings, he would be more likely get more benefits than he would get now. I know they look towards your house as capital, and this could affect any claim, but I think it unlikely they will ask someone to sell there house and live of the proceeds, as the government will only have to re-house them anyway.


Why doesn't he give a cheque to his mother or brother for 35K, then claim to have no assets, that way he'll be able to claim his 65 quid a week.

If anyone ask tell them it was a gambling debt he had to settle.
To know the road ahead, ask those coming back.

#5 SHERWICK

SHERWICK

    I live on HPC!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,482 posts

Posted 31 December 2004 - 04:07 PM

Why doesn't he give a cheque to his mother or brother for 35K, then claim to have no assets, that way he'll be able to claim his 65 quid a week.

If anyone ask tell them it was a gambling debt he had to settle.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


My question: why should my taxes go to support yet another person that does't need support?
The mighty neo liberal steam roller that crushed all before it from the 1980s to the beginning of the new millennium has morphed in recent years into a Charlie Carioli clown car that now can not go two yards without loud bangs, smoke pouring out of the engine and the doors dropping off. (by stormymonday_2011, posted amidst the Barclays Libor crisis on 02/07/2012)

Polster: why did you vote labour?
Labour voter: because I hate Margaret Thatcher
Polster: how old were you when she left Downing st?
Labour voter: 3
(by Robo1968, posted 10/05/2010)

From BBC HYS 15/05/2009:
"Last year, my MP's second home claim was 5,000 more than my total salary and now I find out that he's trying to charge me for cleaning his swimming pool!"

"Whatever your argument it's wrong." bendy, 21/02/2014

#6 dave

dave

    HPC Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 342 posts

Posted 31 December 2004 - 04:07 PM

Um, frankly, with £35,000 in the bank I should think he's got quite enough not to need to claim JSA, especially as he is living at home.
I think you've got it the wrong way round. I know when my Dad had a spell of umemployment a couple of years back, he couldn't claim jack-sh*t because he was a home-owner.

Why is he even claiming any benefits at all?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


OK, to answer your first comment. He does not want to live at home, he is only doing so, inorder to save a deposit for a house. He has made alot of sacrifices along the way. There is no way he could of saved that kind of money, if he had to rent a house. He is basically living at home rent free. His family do not want him to contribute, they just want him to be financially secure so he can move out.

To answer your next question, see above.

#7 Dicky

Dicky

    HPC Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,368 posts

Posted 31 December 2004 - 04:13 PM

My question: why should my taxes go to support yet another person that does't need support?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Could say the same about the Royal family and upper class land owners who avoid tax with clever accounting and rule bending.
To know the road ahead, ask those coming back.

#8 dave

dave

    HPC Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 342 posts

Posted 31 December 2004 - 04:14 PM

My question: why should my taxes go to support yet another person that does't need support?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


That is a bit cynical, I was pointing out that the whole means tested system is rubbish. Had he owned a house (not an expensive one), he would likely receive benefits. Just because he has got 35k, he is unlikely to recieve the benefits a homeowner with no savings receives. And the homeowners equity is likely to be worth more than 35k.

#9 zzg113

zzg113

    I live on HPC!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,042 posts

Posted 31 December 2004 - 04:16 PM

Had he owned a house (not an expensive one), he would likely receive benefits.


You are wrong in this and unless you have any first-hand experience to back this up I suggest you stop saying it.
Al Greenspan, who facilitated the birth of world-wide HPI with irrationally exuberant interest rates

mortgage

#10 laurejon

laurejon

    I live on HPC!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,602 posts

Posted 31 December 2004 - 04:18 PM

He is in exactly the same position many STR'ers are going to find themselves in should they be made redundant or just lose their jobs.

The will be shelling out 1k a month of their savings in rent, whereas a home owner only has to pay the interest on his mortgage for nine months then the DSS take over and pay it for him.

Buying a house in a recession is a good deal provided you have 9 months of cash to get the the DSS thresholds.

#11 SHERWICK

SHERWICK

    I live on HPC!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,482 posts

Posted 31 December 2004 - 04:19 PM

That is a bit cynical, I was pointing out that the whole means tested system is rubbish. Had he owned a house (not an expensive one), he would likely receive benefits. Just because he has got 35k, he is unlikely to recieve the benefits a homeowner with no savings  receives. And the homeowners equity is likely to be worth more than 35k.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Well, why should my taxes go to support someone with a fixed asset worth hundreds of thousands of pounds (they can sell it and buy something cheaper) OR £35k in savings (they can spend it)? THEY DON'T NEED SUPPORT!
The mighty neo liberal steam roller that crushed all before it from the 1980s to the beginning of the new millennium has morphed in recent years into a Charlie Carioli clown car that now can not go two yards without loud bangs, smoke pouring out of the engine and the doors dropping off. (by stormymonday_2011, posted amidst the Barclays Libor crisis on 02/07/2012)

Polster: why did you vote labour?
Labour voter: because I hate Margaret Thatcher
Polster: how old were you when she left Downing st?
Labour voter: 3
(by Robo1968, posted 10/05/2010)

From BBC HYS 15/05/2009:
"Last year, my MP's second home claim was 5,000 more than my total salary and now I find out that he's trying to charge me for cleaning his swimming pool!"

"Whatever your argument it's wrong." bendy, 21/02/2014

#12 dave

dave

    HPC Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 342 posts

Posted 31 December 2004 - 04:23 PM

You are wrong in this and unless you have any first-hand experience to back this up I suggest you stop saying it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I know someone who works at the jobcentre who deals with claims, I will get the ruling on this and get back to you.

But let me ask you this, say if someone lived in a crappy 2 bedroom terraced worth 50k and a rubbish area. Then they found themselves unemployed, needing money to support family etc, do you think he will recieve no benefits at all? Or do you think they would tell the person he needs to remortgage if he needs money, I doubt it very much.

#13 zzg113

zzg113

    I live on HPC!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,042 posts

Posted 31 December 2004 - 04:44 PM

if someone lived in a crappy 2 bedroom terraced worth 50k and a rubbish area. Then they found themselves unemployed, needing money to support family etc, do you think he will recieve no benefits at all?


No, he would be eligible for some benefits, like JSA for example, but as your brother will have found out, JSA would only cover the tiniest of mortgages and it is certainly not enough to live on. He would also get child benefit, depending on the age of the children and whether they were in full-time education.


The govt stopped paying your mortgage interest for you if you became unemployed a long time ago. Why do you think so many people were repossessed in the last crash? Because exactly what you describe happened, people lost their jobs, couldn't pay the mortgage and had their houses repossessed. There were not then, nor are there now, any handouts to prevent this from happening.

A renter can get housing benefit, a homeowner cannot.
Al Greenspan, who facilitated the birth of world-wide HPI with irrationally exuberant interest rates

mortgage

#14 Biggest Bear

Biggest Bear

    HPC Poster

  • New Members
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Location:Warwick

Posted 31 December 2004 - 05:04 PM

My question: why should my taxes go to support yet another person that does't need support?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Maybe its because his paid his contributions ?
Its going down and theres nothing, anybody, anywhere, can do about it !

#15 laurejon

laurejon

    I live on HPC!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,602 posts

Posted 31 December 2004 - 05:15 PM

The govt stopped paying your mortgage interest for you if you became unemployed a long time ago. Why do you think so many people were repossessed in the last crash? Because exactly what you describe happened, people lost their jobs, couldn't pay the mortgage and had their houses repossessed. There were not then, nor are there now, any handouts to prevent this from happening.

A renter can get housing benefit, a homeowner cannot



You are very wrong here. In the last recession the Gov paid interest only on all unemployed peoples mortgages, and incidently single parents due to divorce where the wife or partner kept the house.

How do I know this, well.

In the last recession I worked in the building industry and many cottoned onto this scam. I noticed a lot of the lads leaving their partners and renting bedsits. The reason was that is was a scam.

They left their wives, who then claimed DSS and that covered the interest on their mortgage. The ex rented a bedroom off a mate for 50 quid a week and claimed poverty. So he went from struggling to pay his mortgage high interest rate to having it paid and keeping the rest of his earnings.

If he was caught in his ex's house by the DSS they would just say they are trying to get back together and for that they would get a pat on the back.

You are wrong, any house purchased before 1995 you get your mortgage interest paid immediately when unemployed, however after 1995 you must wait nine months.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users