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.

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?

Answer: because he can!

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.

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

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.

Could say the same about the Royal family and upper class land owners who avoid tax with clever accounting and rule bending.

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

Maybe its because his paid his contributions ?

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.

Laurejohn, are you sure. I don't think you get anything, otherwise why would people bother to take out unemployment insurance. My sister in law just had to sell her house because her business failed. Also, because she now has more that £8k in capital, she gets no support, even thouigh she's renting.

from the shelter website.

When can ISMI be paid?
Most people who are unemployed or on a very low income can get help. However, if you got your mortgage after you started claiming benefits, you may not be eligible. If you already had your mortgage, but increased it after you started claiming, you will only get interest payments on the amount you originally borrowed. Loans for essential repairs or improvements may be covered even if you take them out after you claim income support or job seeker's allowance.

You can't get any money to cover the capital you originally borrowed, or any investment that is linked to your mortgage (such as an endowment policy, pension or ISA). You can ask your lender for a statement of your mortgage costs, and how much of what you pay is interest.

How do I claim?
Income support mortgage interest is paid by the Benefits Agency. If you want to apply, you will have to fill in a form (MI 12), giving details about your situation. You will have to provide proof of your income, details of your financial situation and any related paperwork. Your lender will have to complete some of the forms confirming how much interest you pay. If you need help applying, get advice.

When will I get the first payment?
People over 60 are entitled to help immediately, but there are waiting periods for everyone else. If you took out your mortgage after 2 October 1995, payments normally won't start until 39 weeks after you claim. How ever, you may get payments sooner if:

you got your mortgage before 2 October 1995
you are a carer and the person you look after is eligible for certain benefits
you are a single parent whose partner has died or left
you are an offender and are waiting for a trial or sentence
your have mortgage protection insurance but it won't pay because of a medical condition you already had when you took out the insurance
your mortgage replaces a previous mortgage on the same property, which was taken out with the same lender on or before 2 October 1995
If you are in one of these situations, you will probably be eligible for no interest at all for the first 8 weeks, half of the interest for the next 18 weeks, and all of the interest after 26 weeks. You will have to pay for any interest that is not covered from any income or savings you may have.

How is it paid?
Income support mortgage interest is usually paid directly to your lender at the end of every four weeks. This is the case even if your mortgage payments are due on a monthly basis, so you may appear to be behind with payments. The rules about how much you get are complicated

If you are separated and it is possible for you to receive some help with mortgage payment from your ex-partner, you will need to get advice as to how these payments are to be made. They may affect the amount of benefit you are entitled to.

If your home is considered to be too expensive or too large for your needs, any payments you receive may be reduced to cover the costs you would have if you could reasonably be expected to move to a more affordable home. If you are in this situation, get advice. It may be possible to show that it is not reasonable to expect you to move somewhere else.

The amount you get is also based on the average interest rate at the time you make your claim. If your mortgage interest rate is lower than average all of the interest will be covered, but if it is higher than average you will have to pay the difference from any income or savings you may have. It might be possible to negotiate with your lender if the difference is very small and you will be able to pay it off soon.

What about housing benefit?
Housing benefit only covers rent payments, so you can't claim HB to pay your mortgage. However, if you bought your home through a shared ownership scheme, you may be able to get HB to help pay the rent on the share you do not own.

Now there is a good scam in this one, the partner has left.

Absolutely BB. You've paid your contributions.

I was made redundant once. I had paid over ten years of income tax and NI - half of it at 40%. I am a qualified and experienced engineer - I wasn't going to be unemployed for long. So you go to sign on because you're down on your luck and need a little help to tide you over and they treat you like second class scum. It's like they are giving out their own money. Fortunately I was only out of work for a few weeks.

Until it's happened to you then you simply don't know what a miserable experience it is.

The real scandal in this country is the 2.6 (2.7?) million people on 'incapacity' benefit.

Anyone else constantly stumbling across 'incapacitated' people in the street?

The reason you must have unemployment insurance is to tied you over for the 9 months they dont pay. Thats what I have and I think its well worth it.

I bet there are literally thousands of households with single parents who are getting the interest paid on their mortgages today.

The problem is that the doctors/GPs will write out a sicknote for any malingerer that walks through the door. I think doctors should stop giving out sicknotes like they're going out of fashion.

If Doctors did not produce incapacity notes then how on earth would the Labour Party be able to hide the unemployment rates?.

It makes sense to say that anyone who is out of work is incapacitated, they must be else they would be lapping up all those top jobs the British Workers dont want.

Lots of people can get off work by being stressed, depressed or anxious

Thats why antidepressents are one of the top drugs given out amongst all age groups.

How many people do you know are on them? Why?

So how is it that if you have STR'd and have a big buffer in the bank you are worse off than an OO who has £0 savings.

As an STR its given me a lot more confidence with that regard. In fact it was one of the driving forces behind the whole thing, a serious bike accident meant I couldn't work for 3 months, didn't get paid for 2 months and was getting a bit worried. If the same thing happened now I wouldn't be worried at all, make a small dent in the savings but nothing significant (in fact wouldn't be a problem at all as the wife has a decent job also).

Scenario 1. Me as an STR lose my job, I get off my **** and get looking for a job, takes me 3 months which is fine as I have more than enough from the equity I have released.

Scenario 2. Mr OO loses his job, he gets off his **** and goes looking for a job, at month 2 as he has no savings he has the bank ringing him up as he hasn't paid the mortgage and has a large overdraft built up to feed the family, he suffer stress which effects his sleep, he keeps missing interviews or doing badly because of that lack of sleep from all the stress. After 6 months he has huge debt and the bank sends the boys round, they reposess the house and he's on the street.

If you were made redundant or otherwise made unemployed involuntarily you are entitled to claim job seekers allowance for 6 months and it is not means tested.
All you are expected to do is sign on weekly or fortnightly and keep a record of your efforts to find employment. You will be expected to periodically attend interviews at the job centre to discuss your efforts to find work.

After 6 months if you are still unemployed you have to revert to claiming different benefits which are means tested.

Limpet

With 35K in savings, it is right he doesn't receive any benefits, he can use that money to tie him over, the notion or premise that saving should be protected is nonsense, why should he be a burden to the state when i'm sure he can get a job... has he tried that approach yet ?

In regards to incapacity benefits in the above thread, i totally agree. I know of someone who claims disability living allowance, and in the not too distant future will inherit some money. Once they inherit this money their benefits are stopped, now this person obviously didn't choose to be disabled and is generally misfortunate in this respect, however i'm happy that my contributions will aid as long as they're not taking the piss, and i know plenty of people that do scam the system and will try to get everything they can. That is just greed and distgusting.

Now back to the person with 35K sitting in the bank, my argument would be that the disabled person shouldn't be penalised for inheriting money, because they have no opportunity to earn, and they should receive some concession of some sort. However, Mr 35k claiming unemployment benefit makes me feel a bit sick to be honest, he has every opportunity to work and find work, and the fact he is living at home is more evidence that he can get by. I know this is very subjective but I think i speak for the majority of people.

Greed is why he is claiming.

it certainly is. How does anyone prove depression or back pain?

and I agree that doctors sign sick notes willy nilly. They also dish out antidepressants willy nilly. Not a good idea. I'm not convinced that they're the best treatment.

Sorry I don't agree.

First of all, the dishing out of benefits doesn't encourage anyone to save or dig themselves out of a hole. So if I think I'm going to lose my job the best course of action would be to buy myself a 35k flash car etc.

My grandmother was penalised in the 1960's for saving, she had worked all her life and stumbled upon hard times in later life. Because she had some savings (not a fortune) they told her to sod off. I can't elaborate any more on what she said because I will be accused of all sorts but let's just say that her life's work and savings accounted for nothing whilst a person she knew hadn't paid nearly enough into the system was receiving a wad of notes large enough to choke a horse.

She swore that she would never save again.

Secondly......

Cash in the bank isn't the only indicator of wealth. There are people who have assets like gold in the form of jewellery for instance, worth thousands...

There are some cultures who have certain practices that I don't feel are accounted for on benefits forms. You can be cash poor but asset rich.

Before anyone gets on my case, I know of one such example.

So my point is . if you have to declare cash savings on a DSS form then you should also declare the amount of gold and/or jewellery you have. Of course proving this from the DSS's point of view is rather difficult

so....................

if you anticipate future unemployment > stash all your cash into something 'invisible' as it were.

The threshold at the moment is £8,000 I think. Hardly a fortune. So if you have that much you are expected to wade through it all (it wouldn't take long) until you have zero in the bank.

Why just have nothing in the bank to start with?

Fair comment, I think i'll retract my comments i think i'm more agrieved at people leeching the system at the first opportunity, at least try and find a job first to carry yourself for a bit before claiming every benefit under the sun was more of my concern.

I don't have anywhere near that level of saving, a modest 5k, if i lost my job i'd carry myself for a while before i realise it's time to go to the doll office.

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.

This man IS financially secure wth £35K in the bank - it amazes me why the hell he needs to claim any financial benefit at all or has the gall to even think about claiming. Sorry to be mean spirited, but I hope he gets no help. If this guy had no savings, then, yes, he deserves all the help he can get. GREED comes in many forms, from overvalued houses and myopic greedy vendors ....to those like our chap above. Let's see Greed for what it is and acknowledge it.

Savings can only affect your claim for benefit if you are claimng income based support, not contribution based, which is dependendent on the tax contributions you have paid to date. Also if you have money from the actual sale of a house you do not get penalised in any way, so why should you get penalised for having savings you intend to use as a house deposit ??

I agree Dave, the limits should be raised to something which you could live off the interest with. For example it's unfair to exclude someone who's saved up 35k which yields a pittance in interest, but give someone who's blown all their dosh benefits.

At the same time you wouldn't expect someone with 500k in the bank to be able to claim benefits as you could live off the interest.

I think they should raise the threshold to at least 250k. The incentives to save are pathetic at the moment, this would help give some back.

It isn't unfair to claim benefits with 35k in the bank, it hasn't even kept anywhere near the pace with the cost of housing therefore is virtually worthless if he's looking to move out. If people are expected to live off such measly savings as 35k then it's not unfair to expect people to sell their houses to live off too.

I agree, but upping the benefits criteria so that all and sundry can claim it is not the way to go about remedying that. The benefits bill is big enough as it is.




It is when he's living at home and has no living costs to speak of. There are many people in much worse situations than the OP's acquaintance.

I know a chap in his fifties who got a slight injury at work which he pretends stops him working. He actually moonlights for cash in hand.
He is selling his 3 bed semi for £190000 in order to move to a £300000! I dont know how theyve worked this one, but people like this are always ahead of the rules.

He gets all sorts of benefits including the mortgage interest paid.

His wife has apparently now injured herself at work and is also in receipt of benefits.

They both expect large claims to be paid out by thier employers based around the fact they say they were not given adequate training on how to avoid risks at work!


A freind of mine challenged asked them whether they felt guilty about taking the state for a ride and they replied 'if its there take it'.

zz, so what if he lives at home? He's obviously sacrificing freedoms to save, now is being penalised for doing so, this is grossly unfair. Lets get this in perspective, 35k has kept him up with about 6 months of 2003 house price inflation, it's a pittance and not enough to live off. The 6k threshold is a joke.

Someone in government should calculate how much is required to live off, and then benefits should be paid to everyone who doesn't earn this amount from other forms of income. Not impose a cut off at a stupidly small amount.

We could easily cut the benefits bill by stopping fraud, and also only giving benefits for the first 2 children. If people want huge families they should pay for it themselves.

In reality though , laurejon, few people are out of work for 9 months......most people i know get so sick of being out of work they take any old low paid job after 2 or 3 months.........

NOR IS IT SUPPOSED TO BE! IF IT WAS ENOUGH TO LIVE OFF DON'T YOU THINK EVERYONE WOULD BE ON THE BLOODY DOLE! NOR IS IT SUPPOSED TO KEEP YOU ABREAST OF HOUSE PRICE INFLATION!!!!!!!



What right does the govt have to say what kind of lifestyle someone should lead?




With you as Chancellor, Simon, this country would be bankrupt within a matter of months.

No it wouldn't , I'd save billions upon billions elsewhere.

I just don't think people who've saved up small amounts should be penalised while those who've spent all their money get everything paid for.

Got to agree with Simon99 on this. If you work hard and save hard, why should you be penalised, when someone who perhaps earnt the same but blew it all on beer and fags is entitled to benefit?

Uh, Adam, if you work, why the f*ck are you claiming benefit?

You would claim benefit if you were made made unemployed / redundant?

Yes, I would (claim JSA). That's what it is there for. What it is NOT there for, however, is to reward savers/punish non-savers, debate the merits of financial prudence versus profligacy, how people live their lives etc etc. It is there to get people back to work, end of story.

Well to put it another way, we are not entitled to Child Tax Credits because of our high savings. Others, who either own a house, or blew all their savings on fancy expensive cars, are entitled because these 'assets' are not taken into consideration when handing out credits (aka benefits in non-Gordon-Brown speak).

So our next door neighbours have expensive cars, and full tax credits, while we have a naff (but serviceable) car, with the corresponding savings from not having wasted our money, and no credits

Laurejon you are wrong. The Benefits agency pay you nothing towards your mortgage anymore, interest or otherwise and they haven't done for years which is exactly why people take out repayments insurance. I signed on for three months a few years ago when I had owned a house and had lost my job.

You are only eligible for housing benefit if you rent and even then it is means tested.

With regard to JSA, there are 2 types. Income based and contribution based. Provided you have made enough NI contributions in the previous tax year, you can claim 6 months of contribution based JSA without any means testing whatsoever. After that you can claim income based JSA but this is based on income, savings etc.

If you've got £35k in savings then I don't believe you should be entitled to benefits. It makes a bit of a mockery of the social security system although I concede it seems a bit unfair and that £35k of equity should be treated in the same way as having £35k in cash.

Re the argument about payments towards mortgages in the event of unemployment, This seems to be about as definitive a ruling as I can find .

http://www.cml.org.uk/servlet/dycon/zt-ml/..._mppi_statehelp

Surprises me as I thought you got nothing whatsoever, but as I see it , you get help after 39 weeks.
I did enquire about insuring my mortgage payments a couple of years ago but at that time the premiums for my job (IT) were sky high so didnt bother...

Here Here! Wise words Z

Fully agree, but then again, we pay for this everyday, so why should we not have the right to claim what we put back in? If they dropped tax and made it more cost effective, perhaps I'd be more on your side.

This government is quick enough to take money off us, why not take some off them? Robbing B*******D's.......

The whole of the taxation and benifits system seems a bit peculiar to me, to say the list. It encourages laziness and punishes hard working folks.

Make a decision to study and you are going to be punished by tution fees. Make it worse by working at the same time and you won't get any support. Become highly skilled, start earning marginally above the average and be punished by 40% tax, as if just by earning more you're not already contributing more within a flat tax rate.

Be good at what you do and you will never be out of a job market, never have a change to use the benefit system you are paying for with your hard work. Even given that you could loose your job you won't be able to get any benifits, specially if you were prudent and saved. Get a tax break on some of your interest payments, pay 40% on interest from savings. Being highly skilled spend more time keeping your skills up to date, work longer hours, commute longer distances. There are less highly skilled jobs and they are more specific, hence leaving a smaller chance of finding something 15 minutes drive away.

Additionally, have labour goverment bring more highly skilled immigrants, keeping the wages down. On the other hand who would, in their right mind, go through the endless studies to get a marginally better lifestyle for yourself and your family? Since:

- Be low skilled and pay little tax.
- Spend it all and get benefits.
- Get a job near your home, do not study and you'll get more of free time you can spend with your mates watching football and drinking beer.
- Do not study, since it brings the tution fees and takes time and effort to pay off. It also reduces the amout you can further borrow, which is important, because...
- Instead, increase the quality of your lifestyle instantly through borrowing, there are a lot of cheap cash. Do not save. Cash is cheap, no one is gonna pay you much for your savings.
- Have unions to protect your interests, instead of learning and becoming more competitive on a job market, making the economy more competitive as a whole.

<snip from an earlier post>

The real scandal in this country is the 2.6 (2.7?) million people on 'incapacity' benefit.

Anyone else constantly stumbling across 'incapacitated' people in the street?

<ends>

I'm one of the millions of disabled people in the country and yes, people are stumbling over me in the streets. They are knocking me down in the streets, on the buses and just about every where. Because I look "normal" people assume that I am slow because I am either stupid, drunk or deliberately clumsy. If I am in a wheelchair people are quite happy to bump into me and obstruct me because it's unlikely I'll be able to stop them.

Sadly, at times I am even too weak to be able to verbally defend myself.

I think the scandal of the incapacity benefit is also a scandal but for different reasons. People who have the same disease as I, are not being treated or cured on the NHS. Therefore we have thousands of people who would love to work and love to be well, stuck on the scrapheap.

Do you really think that being disabled and living in poverty is a lifestyle choice for serious numbers of people? I wouldn't like to do it and I fight every day to support myself.

At one stage the govt influenced doctors to put older workers in areas of unemployment onto IB instead of adding them to the unemployment stats.

Now back to the original point. IB is also means tested and my council means tests disabled people who ask for help. This means that young disabled people who are saving to buy a home (like me) are rejected in favour of providing care for elderly people who own houses.

Just to give you an example. My old landlord has an elderly non-working husband. They have put all their money into property and have assets including BTL. They also get free council care for the husband because they don't keep their savings in cash.
They just keep buying property.

I however, work and support myself. My savings for a home means that I don't get the care and I need. The more I need to spend on care the less I have for a home. I can't even cut my own toe-nails or bathe on a daily basis. The property rich landlord gets council care to do that and a paid carerr.