The change from tax credits to universal credit.

[muleman]

You do realise that that still makes them rich, don't you?

The richest people in the world don't carry it in cash.

Yes but will never have any cash unless sell up.
Your rich if you've your health tho really, health's your wealth

 

[farmerm]

You do realise that that still makes them rich, don't you?

The richest people in the world don't carry it in cash.

I am the poorest millionaire I know Even the tax man is feeling sorry for me and has posted me a cheque

 

[Still Farming]

I was trying to find out whether you could still claim benefits while owning land, it seems you can.
Sitting on a lot of money (assuming it's paid for) and claiming benefits seems a little unfair to me.
Perhaps it's ok to you.

Nothing personal or implied.
The qualifying criteria on a range of Government benefits are on Gov.uk pages if you care to take a look to help you understand the UK Systems as clearly different in your Country.
The turn of the Century if you were destitute it was the Workhouse for you.
How times have changed as most on benefits now get more than those trying to earn a living and this is where we are over here,rightly or wrong.
Rules are rules.

 

[neilo]

I am the poorest millionaire I know Even the tax man is feeling sorry for me and has posted me a cheque

You clearly just need to flog of an acre each year. Sorted.

Better make it two, as HMRC will likely want a chunk of it if you cash any in.

 

[muleman]

Nothing personal or implied.
The qualifying criteria on a range of Government benefits are on Gov.uk pages if you care to take a look to help you understand the UK Systems as clearly different in your Country.
The turn of the Century if you were destitute it was the Workhouse for you.
How times have changed as most on benefits now get more than those trying to earn a living and this is where we are over here,rightly or wrong.
Rules are rules.

I never feel guilty, at least we're working and feeding folk and claiming a bit, a lot will claim and do nothing.

 

[Still Farming]

I never feel guilty, at least we're working and feeding folk and claiming a bit, a lot will claim and do nothing.

It's like these minimum wage and average weekly wages figures? Who ever earns that??

 

[kiwi pom]

Benefits/tax credits are paid to supplement income, and pay bills, today. What you may have received or earnt in the past is an irrelevance.

If the value of your farm (if owned) counted against it then would you also disallow those that were living in a house that wasn’t rented?

Depends on the situation I think, if land or a house has a mortgage and people are trying to make a living it's ok in my view.
If someone with a 4-storey mansion in London bought and paid for (perhaps inherited) loses their job I don't think they should automatically get benefits.
Same if you own 200 acres but can't make it pay or win the lottery and lock it away in an investment for five years but then can't pay the bills.
Each case is different.

Yes but will never have any cash unless sell up.
Your rich if you've your health tho really, health's your wealth

Same with a lot of investments.
You might never sell up, but you can IF you really have to, that's the point.
That's the difference between living poor and actually being poor.

 

[neilo]

Depends on the situation I think, if land or a house has a mortgage and people are trying to make a living it's ok in my view.
If someone with a 4-storey mansion in London bought and paid for (perhaps inherited) loses their job I don't think they should automatically get benefits.
Same if you own 200 acres but can't make it pay or win the lottery and lock it away in an investment for five years but then can't pay the bills.
Each case is different.

Same with a lot of investments.
You might never sell up, but you can IF you really have to, that's the point.
That's the difference between living poor and actually being poor.

Where do you draw the line, and why? In your example of someone who has a house and/or land with a mortgage, they can sell it and downsize too.
Why should only those that own somewhere by way of inheritance have to do so?

Is someone who has overextended themselves inherently more worthy of state support, meaning that the state helps to preserve that asset for them?

 

[Still Farming]

Depends on the situation I think, if land or a house has a mortgage and people are trying to make a living it's ok in my view.
If someone with a 4-storey mansion in London bought and paid for (perhaps inherited) loses their job I don't think they should automatically get benefits.
Same if you own 200 acres but can't make it pay or win the lottery and lock it away in an investment for five years but then can't pay the bills.
Each case is different.

Same with a lot of investments.
You might never sell up, but you can IF you really have to, that's the point.
That's the difference between living poor and actually being poor.

Some are professionals at it and been on it for Generations.
They know the rules inside out and get everything and look at you struggling to carry on as a joke.
They have new social houses, new mobility cars , plenty of holidays and don't work or do anything to contribute to society.

 

[muleman]

Some are professionals at it and been on it for Generations.
They know the rules inside out and get everything and look at you struggling to carry on as a joke.
They have new social houses, new mobility cars , plenty of holidays and don't work or do anything to contribute to society.

Will live better than most that work!

 

[glasshouse]

I was trying to find out whether you could still claim benefits while owning land, it seems you can.
Sitting on a lot of money (assuming it's paid for) and claiming benefits seems a little unfair to me.
Perhaps it's ok to you.

Subsidies should be capped so the dukes cant collect £1m plus per annum

 

[ollie989898]

Where do you draw the line, and why? In your example of someone who has a house and/or land with a mortgage, they can sell it and downsize too.
Why should only those that own somewhere by way of inheritance have to do so?

Is someone who has overextended themselves inherently more worthy of state support, meaning that the state helps to preserve that asset for them?

There is no right answer but I do think it is wrong to expect the tax payer to foot the tab whilst you grow your own asset base. That can't be right.

 

[neilo]

There is no right answer but I do think it is wrong to expect the tax payer to foot the tab whilst you grow your own asset base. That can't be right.

The state would be doing so by paying benefits to someone that had a mortgage on land/house, as our kiwi friend is advocating. They would presumably then be able to carry on paying off that property investment.

 

[ollie989898]

The state would be doing so by paying benefits to someone that had a mortgage on land/house, as our kiwi friend is advocating. They would presumably then be able to carry on paying off that property investment.

Surely you will not be able to get a mortgage in the first place if you are claiming benefits?

 

[neilo]

Subsidies should be capped so the dukes cant collect £1m plus per annum

I agree, but where do you set the level? I would venture it would want to be well below £100k, let alone £1m.

That is a different argument than that about tax credits/benefits though.

 

[Still Farming]

Will live better than most that work!

Definitely.
Down the gym, fake tans, tattoos holidays and down the top pubs and restaurants regularly, but their so hard done by with their new mobile phones, massive plasma tv's and designer clothes too.
Your NOT allowed to say the class system anymore as prejudice and offense as ALL want to be the same and irrelevant to how gained.
If the TRUE picture was gained EVERYONE would not believe it.

 

[neilo]

Surely you will not be able to get a mortgage in the first place if you are claiming benefits?

If you already had a mortgage on a Chelsea townhouse from when you had a well paid city job, then got made redundant and had to claim benefits, should you have to sell the house, or receive benefits to help you pay off that property investment?

 

[ollie989898]

If you already had a mortgage on a Chelsea townhouse from when you had a well paid city job, then got made redundant and had to claim benefits, should you have to sell the house, or receive benefits to help you pay off that property investment?

But no benefit payment is going to get you enough cash to pay the mortgage on basically any property these days? You'd have to sell it, pay back the mortgage company and call it square? You'd still be better off than a lot of people?

 

[kiwi pom]

Where do you draw the line, and why? In your example of someone who has a house and/or land with a mortgage, they can sell it and downsize too.
Why should only those that own somewhere by way of inheritance have to do so?

Is someone who has overextended themselves inherently more worthy of state support, meaning that the state helps to preserve that asset for them?

I don't know, it's complicated but I believe benefits should be there for those who genuinely need them and have no other options, they shouldn't be so easily available to those who have a clever accountant or just know their way around all rules to take advantage.
I'm nowhere near clever enough to work out how you do that.

 

[glasshouse]

I agree, but where do you set the level? I would venture it would want to be well below £100k, let alone £1m.

That is a different argument than that about tax credits/benefits though.

Not a different arguement at all.
Dukes or anyone should not get seven figures in subs.
Cut off should be £50k