Wealthy People On Benefits

[Zngland]

so not more equally then because you have paid more?

Either we are in it together or not.

If we had a war should only chavs go and fight?

Personally i'd like to see some of the children of the aristocracy on the front line aswell.

Edited July 22, 2010 by Zngland

[bobthe~]

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.

did you not read the mumsnet thread? They're all leased round my way.

[Greg Bowman]

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

He didn't say that listen up you envious socialist troll. 40% tax payees and business owners contribute a large sum to the pot that you and your ilk like to dish out so freely.

We generally private school our kids, private health care and we consume more hence paying a lot more tax than the average Joe and not taking out as much in normal circumstances.

I ( my brother and I for we own the business) probably write monthly tax cheques that are bigger than your

Tax bill for ten years. No one gave us a leg up and no silver spoon and we gladly pay those taxes.

We have also accumulated a small amount of assets in excess of 500k each if you include house equity, pension pot and company shares.

We are obviously smarter than you ( judging by the c*** you have just posted) whether, we are harder working, have better DNA or are just luckier is open to debate.

So your view is that as soon as we request a fraction from the state of what we have put in we should take a loan? or sell our house?

Why don't you crawl back under that envious, spiteful, it's all the worlds fault stone you live under and do all of us a favour and stay there.

By the way 500k isn't rich no where near it bit it's a small step on the right direction.

[miko]

did you not read the mumsnet thread? They're all leased round my way.

So if the value of the xfive was taken in account that would probably be a minus as sending it back or keeping it would leave the driver ( not owner ) worse off.

How much would it cost to take peoples ( non cash ) assets and liabilitys into account , the appeals processes for those who are not pleased with how their claim has been handled, who would value someones house ? the lady down the job centre by looking in the local paper at the property pages ? the estate agent ? get in an auction company ?

I think those that have paid in should get paid out reguardless of the value of their house.

[Bloo Loo]

He didn't say that listen up you envious socialist troll. 40% tax payees and business owners contribute a large sum to the pot that you and your ilk like to dish out so freely.

We generally private school our kids, private health care and we consume more hence paying a lot more tax than the average Joe and not taking out as much in normal circumstances.

I ( my brother and I for we own the business) probably write monthly tax cheques that are bigger than your

Tax bill for ten years. No one gave us a leg up and no silver spoon and we gladly pay those taxes.

We have also accumulated a small amount of assets in excess of 500k each if you include house equity, pension pot and company shares.

We are obviously smarter than you ( judging by the c*** you have just posted) whether, we are harder working, have better DNA or are just luckier is open to debate.

So your view is that as soon as we request a fraction from the state of what we have put in we should take a loan? or sell our house?

Why don't you crawl back under that envious, spiteful, it's all the worlds fault stone you live under and do all of us a favour and stay there.

By the way 500k isn't rich no where near it bit it's a small step on the right direction.

yeah, put all your cash into an asset and get the benefits....yeah.

[Bloo Loo]

did you not read the mumsnet thread? They're all leased round my way.

of course, is you are old and need help, I gather they sell your house anyway.

not sure why an active family fallen on hard times shouldnt have to do the same.

[SarahBell]

yeah, put all your cash into an asset and get the benefits....yeah.

Yeah there's no bit on the forms for anything other than cash is there? Do they want to know if you have gold?

[Bloo Loo]

Yeah there's no bit on the forms for anything other than cash is there? Do they want to know if you have gold?

course not..its government...all they know is FIAT.

[bobthe~]

He didn't say that listen up you envious socialist troll. 40% tax payees and business owners contribute a large sum to the pot that you and your ilk like to dish out so freely.

We generally private school our kids, private health care and we consume more hence paying a lot more tax than the average Joe and not taking out as much in normal circumstances.

I ( my brother and I for we own the business) probably write monthly tax cheques that are bigger than your

Tax bill for ten years. No one gave us a leg up and no silver spoon and we gladly pay those taxes.

We have also accumulated a small amount of assets in excess of 500k each if you include house equity, pension pot and company shares.

We are obviously smarter than you ( judging by the c*** you have just posted) whether, we are harder working, have better DNA or are just luckier is open to debate.

So your view is that as soon as we request a fraction from the state of what we have put in we should take a loan? or sell our house?

Why don't you crawl back under that envious, spiteful, it's all the worlds fault stone you live under and do all of us a favour and stay there.

By the way 500k isn't rich no where near it bit it's a small step on the right direction.

I think if you read back through my posts* and filtered out the trivia and poor attempts at humour, I would hope that you would see I was not a socialist. The suggestion that benefits should only act as a safety net for the poor does not strike me as being a particularly socialist one. Quite the opposite really.

Most of what you say about yourself applies to me (don't have private medical insurance though).

Maybe you have misunderstood my posts, or read something that was not intended, in which case I am very sorry. It is the problem with the internet I am afraid.

*over the past 3 years that is.

Edited July 22, 2010 by bobthe~

[miko]

yeah, put all your cash into an asset and get the benefits....yeah.

I think you will find that most people with large asset's , do not go down the let's get benefit's route and do not plan their lives and assets around claiming. However like everyone else if they fall out of work they are entitled to claim, they paid in they expect a pay out without having to change their whole lives and selling houses to get over a short period of unemployment.

[miko]

I think if you read back through my posts* and filtered out the trivia and poor attempts at humour, I would hope that you would see I was not a socialist. The suggestion that benefits should only act as a safety net for the poor does not strike me as being a particularly socialist one. Quite the opposite really.

Most of what you say about yourself applies to me (don't have private medical insurance though).

Maybe you have misunderstood my posts, or read something that was not intended, in which case I am very sorry. It is the problem with the internet I am afraid.

*over the past 3 years that is.

So if the sh-t hit your fan tommorrow and don't say it can not , it happend to me over night , would you be happy to sell your house to eat while the guy next door who has only just bought his house so has little equity had his mortgage paid for him on top of money to live on and an exemption for council tax.

Would you give him a cherry wave as your possessions were taken off in the removal van while he grinned back at you?

Edited July 22, 2010 by miko

[Greg Bowman]

yeah, put all your cash into an asset and get the benefits....yeah.

Here we go bl in plain English. What the f*** are you talking about?

We started a business fixing computers, you with me now you are typing on one?

We grew the business and now employ 50 plus people all on paye and sone earning good money. still with me are these assets? we support the business entirely with a small overdraft secured by us.

the 'shares ' I refer to are the shares in our business. Which we created from scratch with a 4k loan. So I thought you would applaud business people who are not btl'ers obviously not.

On spite of paying more on tax across our three concerns than you will pay in a lifetime we will get a pitiful pension so we have our own modest provision - again I thought you of all people would applaud that.

We have accumulated some equity each probably 350k or say, but anyone who was our age could of done that without the afg of running a business.

So all in assets? No all in a viable business creating real jobs because we were harder working, luckier and smarter than the average man in the street.

So of I fall on hard times I would like to think my country will help me, I don't expect it though BL because the politics of envy are what the massed chavs love don't they? Funny never saw you as one of them.

Edited July 22, 2010 by Greg Bowman

[bobthe~]

So if the sh-t hit your fan tommorrow and don't say it can not , it happend to me over night , would you be happy to sell your house to eat while the guy next door who has only just bought his house so has little equity had his mortgage paid for him on top of money to live on and an exemption for council tax.

Would you give him a cherry wave as your possessions were taken off in the removal van while he smiled back at you?

I fully expect it will hit the fan for me, but if I had (as an example) 500k in a house, then I would probably want to sell it and rent somewhere cheaper until it either all blew over or until I ran out of money. 500k in the bank during bad times is a sensible plan if you ask me.

A downside to my argument (it is not something I am wedded to, just thought it worthy of discussion) would be the cost of moving and the stamp duty I would have to pay in order to buy back in.

Round my way, if the guy next door had so little equity in his house then he would have a frecking huge mortgage.

Incidentally though, and this is not relevant to the argument, let's not forget that selling the house may be the best thing that could happen if the market turns down significantly.

500k may well turn into 200k.

[Zngland]

So if the sh-t hit your fan tommorrow and don't say it can not , it happend to me over night , would you be happy to sell your house to eat while the guy next door who has only just bought his house so has little equity had his mortgage paid for him on top of money to live on and an exemption for council tax.

Would you give him a cherry wave as your possessions were taken off in the removal van while he grinned back at you?

Correct me if i'm wrong but the only differnce would be his mortgage interest being paid, the rest should be equal.

If not another example of a failed State promise. The Midas touch in reverse.

[bobthe~]

Incidentally, I am off for the rest of the evening, so please do not be upset if I don't reply.

I also don't want people to think of this as a drive by.

[Greg Bowman]

I think if you read back through my posts* and filtered out the trivia and poor attempts at humour, I would hope that you would see I was not a socialist. The suggestion that benefits should only act as a safety net for the poor does not strike me as being a particularly socialist one. Quite the opposite really.

Most of what you say about yourself applies to me (don't have private medical insurance though).

Maybe you have misunderstood my posts, or read something that was not intended, in which case I am very sorry. It is the problem with the internet I am afraid.

*over the past 3 years that is.

No need to be sorry friend reading this on an iPhone with Eurpean in and out signal.

It's just a raw nerve with me and we seem similiar that having never claimed anything and paid in millions, I should somehow have to justify every penny of my assets when others appear to be lazy, generally fat!! and take thousands out without putting a penny in.

If I have read your post wrong apologies in return.

[asyouwere]

I think you will find that most people with large asset's , do not go down the let's get benefit's route and do not plan their lives and assets around claiming. However like everyone else if they fall out of work they are entitled to claim, they paid in they expect a pay out without having to change their whole lives and selling houses to get over a short period of unemployment.

+1 nicely put, if my husband and I both lost our jobs, although it would be pretty unlucky for us both to be out of work at the same time, then we would try and get by while we found new jobs without claiming any benefits, however given what we have both paid in tax over the last 20 years, currently both getting stung for 60% on income between £100 and £113K on account of the removal of any taxable allowance I would expect to be able to not have to sell all our assets before we would be entitled to help from the state like anyone else.

[miko]

I fully expect it will hit the fan for me, but if I had (as an example) 500k in a house, then I would probably want to sell it and rent somewhere cheaper until it either all blew over or until I ran out of money. 500k in the bank during bad times is a sensible plan if you ask me.

A downside to my argument (it is not something I am wedded to, just thought it worthy of discussion) would be the cost of moving and the stamp duty I would have to pay in order to buy back in.

Round my way, if the guy next door had so little equity in his house then he would have a frecking huge mortgage.

Incidentally though, and this is not relevant to the argument, let's not forget that selling the house may be the best thing that could happen if the market turns down significantly.

500k may well turn into 200k.

But that is not the point , you are talking about you selling your house through choice not forced to sell it. Many people who have 500k equity might not want to sell, they might have that equity but if they become unemployed , sold , spent some of the money on living, and then got a job earning less would have as you said yourself to find the stamp duty to buy it back and vat on the solicitors. So your proposal is that people who have paid in more tax than the average , are bared from claiming , have to sell their house's to eat and clother their kids and then pay a great big tax bill to buy it back again 4% of 500k , £20,000 tax to buy their home back. Seems very unfair to me.

Was not talking just about around your way , was just giving you an example how unfair a system like that could be.

If you sold your house for £500k and found it dropped to £200k , then good luck to you , its called getting a winner, however the state would not be forcing people to sell hoping that the people are going to win in the event of houses crashing 60% are they? they would be doing it to stop those people getting something they have paid in for.

[Bloo Loo]

Here we go bl in plain English. What the f*** are you talking about?

We started a business fixing computers, you with me now you are typing on one?

We grew the business and now employ 50 plus people all on paye and sone earning good money. still with me are these assets? we support the business entirely with a small overdraft secured by us.

the 'shares ' I refer to are the shares in our business. Which we created from scratch with a 4k loan. So I thought you would applaud business people who are not btl'ers obviously not.

On spite of paying more on tax across our three concerns than you will pay in a lifetime we will get a pitiful pension so we have our own modest provision - again I thought you of all people would applaud that.

We have accumulated some equity each probably 350k or say, but anyone who was our age could of done that without the afg of running a business.

So all in assets? No all in a viable business creating real jobs because we were harder working, luckier and smarter than the average man in the street.

So of I fall on hard times I would like to think my country will help me, I don't expect it though BL because the politics of envy are what the massed chavs love don't they? Funny never saw you as one of them.

I understand where you are coming from.

but, you wont be claiming benefits unless your business is lost.

now, you are unemployed.

you may have a mansion.

If you have no mortgage, then you wont get mortgage releif.

however you do have a large asset...your wealth. you would get minimal benefits.

If you however have a large mortgage, you will get help with that.

Now, if you had chosen NOT to put your earnings into an asset, but in cash..then you wouldnt get help..even with your rent if you had more than 16K.

hardly seems to be a level playing field.

my advice, if you fall on hard times and you have cash, buy something.

surely the whole point of building up wealth is to look after yourself, stand on your own two feet. but it appears that you are saying that if you have done all that, the thought of actually doing it is an athema.

[Number86]

I understand where you are coming from.

but, you wont be claiming benefits unless your business is lost.

now, you are unemployed.

you may have a mansion.

If you have no mortgage, then you wont get mortgage releif.

however you do have a large asset...your wealth. you would get minimal benefits.

If you however have a large mortgage, you will get help with that.

Now, if you had chosen NOT to put your earnings into an asset, but in cash..then you wouldnt get help..even with your rent if you had more than 16K.

hardly seems to be a level playing field.

my advice, if you fall on hard times and you have cash, buy something.

surely the whole point of building up wealth is to look after yourself, stand on your own two feet. but it appears that you are saying that if you have done all that, the thought of actually doing it is an athema.

Quite.

I'f I've saved 200k in cash (I wish!), or shares/bonds whatever. Then I get made redundant, I don't get a bean to cover my rent, food, bills. Fair enough I suppose. It's there to help people who can't afford to live by their own means in tough times. With 200k in the coffers you'd be hard pressed to argue your way out of that one.

But, If instead of saving the monies, I overpayed and cleared my mortgage, and have a 200k asset which I can live in for free, I can claim benefits until the cows come home. That's bulltard of the highest order.

It should be either or, not both.

Saying that, the implications of having 200k in a house, and 200k cash are not directly proportional, but it shouldn't alter it that much.

[pathfinder]

The main problem is the system still thinks its the 90's with higher interest rates. Why would you need help if your 200k was generating 6-8% or more (was Tessa not pushing 11%), sure your pot would shrink but it would resist pretty well. Same with pensioners the max savings allowed is beyond a joke, one central heating failure and poof that's your savings gone. Seem to remember Age Concern campaigning against this limit as equity withdrawal counts as savings, madness as the result is a mini re-mortgage ie debt not savings you pay the same again in interest.

We have gone from having a stash of cash could protect you almost indefinitely into 10 years its gone, with services and food increasing and a broken interest rate maybe it will be within 5 years.

[miko]

Quite.

I'f I've saved 200k in cash (I wish!), or shares/bonds whatever. Then I get made redundant, I don't get a bean to cover my rent, food, bills. Fair enough I suppose. It's there to help people who can't afford to live by their own means in tough times. With 200k in the coffers you'd be hard pressed to argue your way out of that one.

But, If instead of saving the monies, I overpayed and cleared my mortgage, and have a 200k asset which I can live in for free, I can claim benefits until the cows come home. That's bulltard of the highest order.

It should be either or, not both.

Saying that, the implications of having 200k in a house, and 200k cash are not directly proportional, but it shouldn't alter it that much.

Wrong

You saved 200k, the other guy paid off his mortgage his house is worth 200k the third guy sp--ked everything he earned. You had all earn't the same and paid the same in tax and NI . You all fall out of work , why should the the third guy get his rent paid while the second guy has to sell his house to live. Why should you the first guy get f--k all as well. This kind of senario happened where i worked.

We all earnt well, all paid lots of tax and NI and we all got made redundant . People left there in all sorts of different circumstances , as people had spent or invested their money in different ways.

Will put one statement to bed , everyone was entitled to JSA , form day 1 of unemployment reguardless of what money they had , the £16000 limit on savings only came into play if people wanted to claim Council tax and housing benefits on top of the JSA. Everyone got JSA , I had a redundancy cheque for £60,000 told them i had it and still got £65pw. Was I entitled to that ? well put it this way after years of paying 40% tax plus NI , i had just paid £13000 in one go from my redundancy cheque , the gross payment was £73000.

We paid in we drew out !!

[miko]

Correct me if i'm wrong but the only differnce would be his mortgage interest being paid, the rest should be equal.

If not another example of a failed State promise. The Midas touch in reverse.

But that was what i was asking the poster , he said if people had equity in houses should they be barred from getting benefits. I replied with that senario asking him if he would be happy with an outcome like that.

[goldbug9999]

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?

There is some logic to what you say but its patently unfair that I, someone with cash and "liquid" investment who is renting, would be unable to claim any benefits whereas someone with the same net worth who owns a house, would be able to.

I have personally known people who have bought a house, in one case moved to bigger one, to use up all their savings so they could claim benefits.

I think if you can sell or cash up ANY assets or investments then you should be forced to do that and use up that money before being illegible for any benefits. Pensions are a special case because you cannot physically "cash up" before you retire.

[goldbug9999]

I think you will find that most people with large asset's , do not go down the let's get benefit's route and do not plan their lives and assets around claiming. However like everyone else if they fall out of work they are entitled to claim, they paid in they expect a pay out without having to change their whole lives and selling houses to get over a short period of unemployment.

Firstly I know people who have done exactly that - plow all their money into a house in order to be able to claim benefits. Secondly, if you cant afford 6 months mortgage payments without having to work you are living beyond your means (there is also such a thing as payment insurance if you are really worried about redundancy).

The only fair system is to remove ALL forms of state housing support for owner occupiers and private renters. People who want their accomodation costs to be subsidised should be forced to live in social housing.