Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Vested Disinterest

Unemployment Wiping Out Capital...

Recommended Posts

Could somebody put me straight on this please?

If you've got savings greater than X then you can't claim long term benefits until you've spent it. But if you own a house but have no savings, you can claim without having to sell your house, is that right?

If this is true then there should be some kind of savings account which is earmarked for FTB deposits and out of the reach of the social services, otherwise some people are going to be mighty pissed off!

Although maybe in practice nobody is really unemployed for more than a year or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest skullingtonjoe
Could somebody put me straight on this please?

If you've got savings greater than X then you can't claim long term benefits until you've spent it. But if you own a house but have no savings, you can claim without having to sell your house, is that right?

If this is true then there should be some kind of savings account which is earmarked for FTB deposits and out of the reach of the social services, otherwise some people are going to be mighty pissed off!

Although maybe in practice nobody is really unemployed for more than a year or so.

Many people will find they`ve worked all their lives and paid into the system, only to become unemployed. The pain gets worse.

If you have over £16,000 you won`t be entitled to long-term benefits (at least Housing Benefit, or Local Housing Allowance as it`s now called). The best solution is to say that you have no savings. Yes, it`s very naughty, but no worse than the MPs who caned in all that money and are now moaning about living on `rations`(!) All those taxes and NI contributions you paid in will have no meaning while some skanky chav gets unlimited benefit. :( In fact, if you have any savings over £3000, those will be taken into account when working out your JSA! :rolleyes:

Best policy is to declare poverty in every situation. Not very dignified, but usually the best option, I`m afraid.

Edited by skullingtonjoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If this is true then there should be some kind of savings account which is earmarked for FTB deposits and out of the reach of the social services, otherwise some people are going to be mighty pissed off!

FORGET_THE_BANK_I_GOT_MON_46415a047635e.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my savings....

pamp-suisse-gold-bars.jpg

they can't tax it, can't touch it..they don't know about it and why should i declare it a savings??. :) and, hopefully will keep some value over the long term.

EDIT: look out for means testing, i'm sure it will be coming on everything soon. My means are very VERY limited to the outside eye.

Edited by chris c-t

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest skullingtonjoe
my savings.... they can't tax it, can't touch it..they don't know about it and why should i declare it a savings??. :) and, hopefully will keep some value over the long term.

pamp-suisse-gold-bars.jpg

Fair play mate. If you`ve any financial concerns, just become an MP. Sure, you`ll have to live on `rations` for a while, but once the media hoo-ha is over it`ll be expense account city again! Happy days! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A pension plan is another way of ring-fencing capital. Willful deprivation of capital may result in the money still being counted. Purchases related to employment, such as a more reliable car or new computer -- may be considered acceptable spending. Not declaring savings is a criminal offence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't count gold. ;)

Otherwise they would have to go the whole hog, come round your house and value all your possessions.

Yeah could happen..

"hey you don't need to (and therefore can't) claim just yet, if you sell all your clothes bar what you're wearing you can feed yourself for another week or so."

..but not yet. Act accordingly and invest accordingly, or claim contributions based (6 month max) or lie. Up to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fair play mate. If you`ve any financial concerns, just become an MP. Sure, you`ll have to live on `rations` for a while, but once the media hoo-ha is over it`ll be expense account city again! Happy days! :lol:

Weekly rations for your average MP, or two of them for Prescott:

Harrods_Hamper.jpg

post-12677-1250171656_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
my savings....

pamp-suisse-gold-bars.jpg

they can't tax it, can't touch it..they don't know about it and why should i declare it a savings??. :) and, hopefully will keep some value over the long term.

EDIT: look out for means testing, i'm sure it will be coming on everything soon. My means are very VERY limited to the outside eye.

I've got a few dozen of those. Thinking of digging them up and selling them though because they're getting a bit rusty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One solution, which is safer perhaps than the cash under the mattress option, and which both don't earn interest.

Open up National Lottery account, transfer savings in there. You don't have to declare what you have in this account, and you can legitimately say you gambled it away. Then you can move it out when you're no longer getting benefits/gainfully employed. This all depends on the maximum amount you can keep in a Lotto (or similar) account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Could somebody put me straight on this please?

If you've got savings greater than X then you can't claim long term benefits until you've spent it. But if you own a house but have no savings, you can claim without having to sell your house, is that right?

If this is true then there should be some kind of savings account which is earmarked for FTB deposits and out of the reach of the social services, otherwise some people are going to be mighty pissed off!

Although maybe in practice nobody is really unemployed for more than a year or so.

There is a train of thought that runs that this entire asset ramping episode was a way of getting the younger generations to pay for the demographic shift without having to overtly tax them and face a backlash / revolution.

If we all just believe that houses are now "worth" 8 times income and the majority of home owners are up the age bell curve (ftbs out of the market) then there is a "neccesary" intergenerational transfer of wealth. More of my income is spent on paying for the house I have bought from the old folks to pay for their retirement / nursing care / surgery.

If we were to be taxed at the level required to transfer the same amount of our monthly salary there would be blood on the streets.

Of course it's only a speculative theory. And it dosn't account for the fact that many old people are actually quite poor. (except for their houses which they shout at the daily mail to let them keep)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Could somebody put me straight on this please?

If you've got savings greater than X then you can't claim long term benefits until you've spent it. But if you own a house but have no savings, you can claim without having to sell your house, is that right?

If this is true then there should be some kind of savings account which is earmarked for FTB deposits and out of the reach of the social services, otherwise some people are going to be mighty pissed off!

Although maybe in practice nobody is really unemployed for more than a year or so.

Yep, it pisses me off that if you are prudent, work hard (thereby financing the benefit system) and save your pennies (not leveraging against houses that only go up*) they fock you over and give you bu99er all out of the system that you financed

*until they go down

Edited by zebbedee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest skullingtonjoe
A pension plan is another way of ring-fencing capital. Willful deprivation of capital may result in the money still being counted. Purchases related to employment, such as a more reliable car or new computer -- may be considered acceptable spending. Not declaring savings is a criminal offence.

True.

But in these days, it doesn`t seem to matter much. Especially as the ultimate benefit fraudsters (our MPs), seem to have got away with it.

Edited by skullingtonjoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One solution, which is safer perhaps than the cash under the mattress option, and which both don't earn interest.

Open up National Lottery account, transfer savings in there. You don't have to declare what you have in this account, and you can legitimately say you gambled it away. Then you can move it out when you're no longer getting benefits/gainfully employed. This all depends on the maximum amount you can keep in a Lotto (or similar) account.

Just a thought...you could credit your credit card, then it really would be a credit card. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One solution, which is safer perhaps than the cash under the mattress option, and which both don't earn interest.

Open up National Lottery account, transfer savings in there. You don't have to declare what you have in this account, and you can legitimately say you gambled it away. Then you can move it out when you're no longer getting benefits/gainfully employed. This all depends on the maximum amount you can keep in a Lotto (or similar) account.

I have a sizable account at Neteller.com - maximum is i believe £25k. Others like ebookers.com exist.

It is denominated in Euros. As far as the Man is concerned, I lost it all at poker.

Always a risk of titsup.com but then a maurauding chav army could come and steal your gold, so you pays your money and takes your choice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a train of thought that runs that this entire asset ramping episode was a way of getting the younger generations to pay for the demographic shift without having to overtly tax them and face a backlash / revolution.

If we all just believe that houses are now "worth" 8 times income and the majority of home owners are up the age bell curve (ftbs out of the market) then there is a "neccesary" intergenerational transfer of wealth. More of my income is spent on paying for the house I have bought from the old folks to pay for their retirement / nursing care / surgery.

If we were to be taxed at the level required to transfer the same amount of our monthly salary there would be blood on the streets.

Of course it's only a speculative theory. And it dosn't account for the fact that many old people are actually quite poor. (except for their houses which they shout at the daily mail to let them keep)

interesting idea - hadn't thought of that!

edit to add: although the generation with the housing wealth also have very good final salary pension schemes... it's the next generation which is going to be a problem isn't it?

Edited by Farjer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   296 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.