Job seekers allowance

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

He is a nurse and so is his wife both earning just over 20 k each, and they pay for child minding.....

In which case they won't lose any child benefit. This only gets cut if one parent's earnings take them into the 40% tax bracket (about £43K I think) - implying that once the family income is at level then there's no need for any external financial support. Problem with applying any logic is that if both parents earned just below the 40% threshold (say £42K each) then their child benefit would be retained.
Just bloody mindedness and lazy legislation imo.
Why not apply a similar "principle" to anyone getting a state old age pension? And at what level would you set the income cut-off? After all, a retired couple with no mortgage might just get by on bit less than the £43K "needed" by two youngish adults with one and a couple of kids.

 

[beorhthelm]

Just bloody mindedness and lazy legislation imo.

yes it is, but this thread illustrates exactly the problem that it tries to avoid, having the household income assessed, which is seen as intrusive. no one rationally believes that 40% tax payers should be in reciept of child benefit, shirley?

 

[smalldino]

Household income is taken into account. Chances are she would not receive any money and have to still sign on every fortnight but her NI would be paid for her.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Household income is taken into account. Chances are she would not receive any money and have to still sign on every fortnight but her NI would be paid for her.

Not for JSA it isn't.

 

[Yoda]

My girlfriend lost her job recently and the JC+ have been nothing but polite and helpful. She had to give all her details and mine - I had no problems with that - and she's now getting JSA. Straight forwards and very painless. We're not married and I earn quite a reasonable amount but it was still based on her circumstances not mine. I think they ask for your details as they also consider other benefits you could claim ( like Council Tax relief ) but these ARE based on the household income.

Nope, they do two types of JSA claim. First is Contributory JSA based on her NI from the previous 3 tax years. (Which is what it sounds like she may well be recieving)

If you don't qualify for that, they do a means tested claim based on your (and partner's if you have one) circumstances and income.

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

yes it is, but this thread illustrates exactly the problem that it tries to avoid, having the household income assessed, which is seen as intrusive. no one rationally believes that 40% tax payers should be in reciept of child benefit, shirley?

So the partner who's income is below the 40% band makes the claim. Is the household (ie parental) income assessed when determining that claim - yes. What's the difference?
As for the 40% level, you'd assume this was determined on the basis of some facts and data (ie need) rather than it being an arbitrary and convenient figure for a tax system infrastructure that's been developed on the basis of invidual taxation. So apply the same "principles" to the state old age pension, work out how much a retired couple "need" using the same criteria (but no kids to support) and if their private income exceeds that figure then withdraw the state pension. no one rationally believes that retired people with that level of income should be in receipt of a state pension, shirley?

 

[beorhthelm]

my point is that they tried to shoe horn in to an individual taxation system something which isnt paid within that system. it a bodge, but whats the alternative? tax child benefit, or ditch the idea completely and continue to have people earning 50k and claiming child benefit?

incidently pensions are taxed, so the comparison to them doesnt hold. probably this would have been the better way to implement a change to child benefits.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

As an aside on this has anyone else seen the paperwork required for the minimum pension guarantee - it's terrifying and almost certainly designed to scare the elderly from claiming (this was Blair/Brown being a wanker not Cameron - although he is)

This is one of those areas where the REAL wankers - the senior civil servants who devise the procedures, with no idea how ordinary people live - are very happy to see people squabble about which politician is to blame.

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

my point is that they tried to shoe horn in to an individual taxation system something which isnt paid within that system. it a bodge, but whats the alternative? tax child benefit, or ditch the idea completely and continue to have people earning 50k and claiming child benefit?

incidently pensions are taxed, so the comparison to them doesnt hold. probably this would have been the better way to implement a change to child benefits.

If you want to go down the route of limiting the payment of child benefit on the grounds of household income then you do the job properly, making it fair and equitable to all. You don't design it as a bodge just because you can't be arsed and can't be bothered to upgrade your systems.

And pensions aren't subject to NI whereas the £43k of income is. As was done for for the child benefit cut-off figure, you'd work out what a pensioner household needs per annum to live on (net figure), gross it up to whatever and there's your cut-off point. Actually, the job's already been done, this net figure's the current state pension isn't it? - Easy peasy.

Can I go back to the Amex transport saga and comparing the club's understanding of disabilty vs the 2010 Equality Act now please?

 

[sten_super]

If you want to go down the route of limiting the payment of child benefit on the grounds of household income then you do the job properly, making it fair and equitable to all. You don't design it as a bodge just because you can't be arsed and can't be bothered to upgrade your systems.

In an ideal world, yes, but it's not that straightforward is it? The bodge is because that's the cheapest way of doing it; the danger of just reforming child benefit is that the costs would outweigh the money saved. What of course needs to be done is a re-working of the entire tax and benefits system; but can you imagine the furore if the government announced that it was to spend £Xbn on reforming the tax/benefits system and in the end a large proportion of the population would pay more tax or get less benefits as a result? All the while continuing to talk about reducing outgoing across the public sector in areas like health and education?

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

In an ideal world, yes, but it's not that straightforward is it? The bodge is because that's the cheapest way of doing it; the danger of just reforming child benefit is that the costs would outweigh the money saved. What of course needs to be done is a re-working of the entire tax and benefits system; but can you imagine the furore if the government announced that it was to spend £Xbn on reforming the tax/benefits system and in the end a large proportion of the population would pay more tax or get less benefits as a result? All the while continuing to talk about reducing outgoing across the public sector in areas like health and education?

I know this, but implementing a bodge that's clearly not fair or equitable (and deliberately so by design) starts to chip away at the fair society, we're all in this together concept don't you think? And if saving money is the key driver then why not go for an upper income limit on state pension qualification, HMRC surely has the systems needed for that?

 

[manilaseagull]

Household income is taken into account. Chances are she would not receive any money and have to still sign on every fortnight but her NI would be paid for her.

This is all we want is for her NI to be paid, at the moment I earn just about enough but to keep the voluntary contributions going is over £50 per month.

I dont earn a fortune £38K plus my RAF pension which I lose over 20% of because I go over the 44k mark.

All we want is the NI paid, no cash.......why is it so hard after I have worked 34 years and wife 25 +? paid all tax etc.....why do they neen to know all our financial circumstances, I am not interested in Morgage help etc....just to have the NI paid..

I will make a call tonight....she has paid 27 years and only 30 is required for a full pension.....

 

[somerset]

It's all because David Cameron is a wanker

Dickhead..... its not as if this has just come in over the last year is it?

 

[beorhthelm]

I know this, but implementing a bodge that's clearly not fair or equitable (and deliberately so by design) starts to chip away at the fair society, we're all in this together concept don't you think? And if saving money is the key driver then why not go for an upper income limit on state pension qualification, HMRC surely has the systems needed for that?

agree they should ahve done it fairer. but pensions... again, they do have a system fo this, clawing back 20% or 40% through the tax system if you earn that much in your old age. its cheapest and easiest to simply tax you than to ask you to fill out a form to determine if you qualify for it or not, then pay to a large workforce to administrate this.

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

agree they should ahve done it fairer. but pensions... again, they do have a system fo this, clawing back 20% or 40% through the tax system if you earn that much in your old age. its cheapest and easiest to simply tax you than to ask you to fill out a form to determine if you qualify for it or not, then pay to a large workforce to administrate this.

So you're saying it's better to get 20, 40, 50% back in tax than keeping 100% by not paying it at all? Don't you have to essentially apply for the state pension anyway, it doesn't just show up one day in the bank? Make the initial income assessment then.

 

[binky]

My wife has paid National Insurance for 23 years from 1985 to 2008, from 2008 to present she is paying voluntary contributions for the pension, this has recently risen to £12.50 per week ( £50 per month ) and is getting expensive,
,...

Something else you may want to consider is that as of April last year, the qualifying number of years of NI contributions dropped to 30.
That means your wife is only 7 years short of the target number of years to achieve a full state pension.

If you think she will work for another 7 years in total, (and make the minimum wage for NI contributions in that employment, currently £102 PW), before retiring, there is no need to make any provision by "buying" the NI contibutions.

All Mostly explained here.

 

[beorhthelm]

So you're saying it's better to get 20, 40, 50% back in tax than keeping 100% by not paying it at all?

yes. see how long the consensus lasts on paying towards a state pension lasts if you make it means tested to recieve it at the end. the government that breaks this will break the whole foundation of the welfare state, though i do see this might occur.

 

[METALMICKY]

Nope, they do two types of JSA claim. First is Contributory JSA based on her NI from the previous 3 tax years. (Which is what it sounds like she may well be recieving)

If you don't qualify for that, they do a means tested claim based on your (and partner's if you have one) circumstances and income.

Going off at a slight tangent but worth knowing if you want save yourself some grief. If you are on JSA and are thinking of getting some NHS dental work done free, make sure you are definitely on Income Based JSA. Contributions Based JSA does not qualify because it is not means tested.

Claim incorrectly and you if you come under an NHSBA check will mean you being asked to repay the NHS treatment charges plus a Penalty Charge of up to £100.

 

[smalldino]

You think its bad now, wait until they bring in the one size fits all Universal Credit.

And Yes It is your HOUSEHOLD income that is taken into account and (not that you would) if you were to lie about your pension or any capital the DWP and HMRC and Local Authorities do Data Matching which will show up private pensions any bank accounts that have had large interest payments in last 2 years and any work that has been declared.

And yet still havent got the resources to catch all the cheats

 

[Samej]

Anyone know the ins and outs of jobseekers allowance.

here are the basics.

My wife has paid National Insurance for 23 years from 1985 to 2008, from 2008 to present she is paying voluntary contributions for the pension, this has recently risen to £12.50 per week ( £50 per month ) and is getting expensive,

In a recent pension prediction the voluntary contributions (12.50) will only make £13 per week...

So she called the job centre plus as we have been told that if she gets job seekers allowance the NI will be paid by the govt.

Now they have called asking for all MY NI details, my wages, My RAF pension, our mortgage etc...

I am not willing to discuss and reveal these things just to get job seekers allowance for her.

My main question is why are they interested in my circumstances? yes I work and i have an RAF pension but also have paid taxes every month since 1979..

I am getting increasingly pissed off, it seems that is we arrived under a lorry we would get what we ask for, but honest taxpayers get diddly squat..

I was even told yesterday by a mate because he earns over 40k his wife has her child benifit stopped.,...

Get divorced
Have more kids
get child allownce and rent paid plus loads more
Then you can both give up work
tax payer funds the lot
also heips if you pretend to be disabled benefits are great plus easier parking at the supermarket
This country is f***ed