Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
bobthe~

Wealthy People On Benefits

Recommended Posts

I don't know if anyone has come up with this before, but there must be a number of unemployed rich people who because their wealth is entirely in their house/flat, are able to be on benefits.

I would propose that as well as not getting benefits if you have 16k (or whatever the figure is these days) in Savings and investments, you should not get benefits if you have a certain amount of equity in your house.

In principle, shouldn't 500k of equity in a house exclude someone from the benefits system?

Shouldn't a million pounds of equity?

I am sure that there are practical issues with this. At what point for instance would you force people to actually sell up? Not after a month of unemployment obviously.

And the idea of turfing little old ladies out of their homes and using the proceeds to pay for nursing home care isn't a political vote winner.

However, perhaps the benefits system for these people ought to be in the form of a secured loan against the value of the house, to tide them over through either unemployment or until they sell up whichever happens first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I guess it would be an extension to this, yes. we already have benefits means tested, but for some reason the wealth in somebody's house (and their pension pot for that matter) is excluded.

Ahh. Try this link: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=132925

Careful, you may make yourself unpopular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if anyone has come up with this before, but there must be a number of unemployed rich people who because their wealth is entirely in their house/flat, are able to be on benefits.

I would propose that as well as not getting benefits if you have 16k (or whatever the figure is these days) in Savings and investments, you should not get benefits if you have a certain amount of equity in your house.

In principle, shouldn't 500k of equity in a house exclude someone from the benefits system?

Shouldn't a million pounds of equity?

I am sure that there are practical issues with this. At what point for instance would you force people to actually sell up? Not after a month of unemployment obviously.

And the idea of turfing little old ladies out of their homes and using the proceeds to pay for nursing home care isn't a political vote winner.

However, perhaps the benefits system for these people ought to be in the form of a secured loan against the value of the house, to tide them over through either unemployment or until they sell up whichever happens first.

Bit unfair really , would someone with x amount of equity in their house be expected to not claim on their car insurance if they had an accident . They have paid into the system and are entitled to claim form it like everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In principle, shouldn't 500k of equity in a house exclude someone from the benefits system?

Shouldn't a million pounds of equity?

I would agree, as long as the people who get no benefit from the benefit system dont have to pay into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I guess it would be an extension to this, yes. we already have benefits means tested, but for some reason the wealth in somebody's house (and their pension pot for that matter) is excluded.

And that's the frightening thing you started off talking about wealth in their house , which is not liquid wealth like cash. Now you move on and start talking about what they have in their pension plans. It would be used as the thin edge of the wedge to bar more and more people who have paid in from claiming .

Next step someone is left money in a will , before they can obtain the money the state looks back over the last 15 years and any benefits that that person has claimed during the last 15 years is taken by the state . Where would it end , it seems to me like one of those idears where those that have paid the most in get the least out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only the unemployed but wouldn't it be feasible for them to work 16 hours a week stacking shelves and rake in the tax credits?

Must get a nice disposable income if the house is already paid off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if anyone has come up with this before, but there must be a number of unemployed rich people who because their wealth is entirely in their house/flat, are able to be on benefits.

I would propose that as well as not getting benefits if you have 16k (or whatever the figure is these days) in Savings and investments, you should not get benefits if you have a certain amount of equity in your house.

In principle, shouldn't 500k of equity in a house exclude someone from the benefits system?

Shouldn't a million pounds of equity?

I am sure that there are practical issues with this. At what point for instance would you force people to actually sell up? Not after a month of unemployment obviously.

And the idea of turfing little old ladies out of their homes and using the proceeds to pay for nursing home care isn't a political vote winner.

However, perhaps the benefits system for these people ought to be in the form of a secured loan against the value of the house, to tide them over through either unemployment or until they sell up whichever happens first.

There is a valid point to be made here. There is a range of benefits available to oldies to keep them in there stupidly large homes. I'm helping my parents claim at the moment and there's pension credits, council tax benefits , disability/attendance allowances. It is certainly another example of the system propping up house prices by preventing logical downsizing from family homes. Yet many of these benefit recipients will have ludicrous sums 'tied up' in their home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if anyone has come up with this before, but there must be a number of unemployed rich people who because their wealth is entirely in their house/flat, are able to be on benefits.

I would propose that as well as not getting benefits if you have 16k (or whatever the figure is these days) in Savings and investments, you should not get benefits if you have a certain amount of equity in your house.

In principle, shouldn't 500k of equity in a house exclude someone from the benefits system?

Shouldn't a million pounds of equity?

I am sure that there are practical issues with this. At what point for instance would you force people to actually sell up? Not after a month of unemployment obviously.

And the idea of turfing little old ladies out of their homes and using the proceeds to pay for nursing home care isn't a political vote winner.

However, perhaps the benefits system for these people ought to be in the form of a secured loan against the value of the house, to tide them over through either unemployment or until they sell up whichever happens first.

Have they not paid taxes? that the crux , they probably paid more in ,and when they need help

you want them to live in a cardboard box .

The Stasi brainwashing worked well on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree, as long as the people who get no benefit from the benefit system dont have to pay into it.

To expand a radical new country 2 tax codes ones who want to rely on state and those that don't . unalterable

decision made at 18.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that's the frightening thing you started off talking about wealth in their house , which is not liquid wealth like cash. Now you move on and start talking about what they have in their pension plans. It would be used as the thin edge of the wedge to bar more and more people who have paid in from claiming .

Next step someone is left money in a will , before they can obtain the money the state looks back over the last 15 years and any benefits that that person has claimed during the last 15 years is taken by the state . Where would it end , it seems to me like one of those idears where those that have paid the most in get the least out.

OK, lets forget the pension pot business, it was just me mentioning another form of wealth that is not taken into account. I think Life Assurance policies are the same.

To answer your points, the benefits system pretty much guarantees that those who put the most in will get the least out. Adding or removing houses from that list won't change that, other than safeguarding the welfare state a little more.

Unemployment is a means tested benefit. If I have half a mill in cash, I would imagine I am not likely to qualify for that benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have they not paid taxes? that the crux , they probably paid more in ,and when they need help

you want them to live in a cardboard box .

The Stasi brainwashing worked well on you.

That's right. half a million quid won't get you a cardboard box.

They don't need help. They are wealthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have they not paid taxes? that the crux , they probably paid more in ,and when they need help

you want them to live in a cardboard box .

The Stasi brainwashing worked well on you.

And are you saying that those who paid less in (i.e. the poor) are less deserving of benefits?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bit unfair really , would someone with x amount of equity in their house be expected to not claim on their car insurance if they had an accident . They have paid into the system and are entitled to claim form it like everyone else.

So why have a £16,000 limit in the first place then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, lets forget the pension pot business, it was just me mentioning another form of wealth that is not taken into account. I think Life Assurance policies are the same.

To answer your points, the benefits system pretty much guarantees that those who put the most in will get the least out. Adding or removing houses from that list won't change that, other than safeguarding the welfare state a little more.

Unemployment is a means tested benefit. If I have half a mill in cash, I would imagine I am not likely to qualify for that benefit.

Yes lets forget the pension pot business, but that is the problem if they bought this in how long before they backtrack on that , how many times have the new govenment back tracked on election promises.

By your own post you state that the benefits system pretty much guarantees that those who put the most in will get the least out. So why add to that by making those who put the most in get even less out. Adding or removing houses from that list WILL make a difference, the whole point of your post.

If you had half a mill in cash you are entiltled to JSA for the first six months, but anyway you were talking about houses which are not cash they are houses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like physical gold is once again the asset class of choice for the discerning benefit sponger.

Off the radar, off the grid, outside the 'system', untraceable, portable.... need I go on? There are always ways for people to avoid appearing 'wealthy'.

I believe the state looks after your mortgage if you have one, so why should you have to sell your home (owned outright) if others get their mortgage interest paid?

Well I was thinking that this would replace the current system, with the idea that the state would not look after your mortgage if you have a certain amount of equity, not just depending on whether you own it all or not. As I mentioned in my original post, I can see pitfalls of this, particularly the point when the govt should force the sale, which is why I thought a solution might be to have it as a loan for a period, or even to placate people, do what HAM said the Swedish do and pay for 6 months regardless.

On the gold front, I did tell a friend who was buying a house in '07 that if it came to it, to buy a lot of gold and bury it in the garden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, lets forget the pension pot business, it was just me mentioning another form of wealth that is not taken into account. I think Life Assurance policies are the same.

To answer your points, the benefits system pretty much guarantees that those who put the most in will get the least out. Adding or removing houses from that list won't change that, other than safeguarding the welfare state a little more.

Unemployment is a means tested benefit. If I have half a mill in cash, I would imagine I am not likely to qualify for that benefit.

Another point to consider is if you have a pension fund it does not exclude you from benifits, but if you do not and have saved in cash or another asset form it does exclude you from benifits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why have a £16,000 limit in the first place then?

The limit is the same for everyone , reguardless what your house is worth, just as everyone can claim on a car insurance policy if they paid in reguardless of the value of their house , everyone can claim for JSA reguardless of the value of their house and this should not be changed.

When you are first unemployed there is no limit to how much cash you have for a JSA claim , The £16000 limit comes into play if you want to claim housing benefit's , council tax benefits or after the six months has lapsed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

equity in the X5 and the Cayenne should also be included.

Benefits should be paid based on your BALANCE SHEET, not the method of holding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 140 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

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.