Who's have thunk it? UC recipient bank account access trail

[JagLover]

matrignano said:

poo at Paul's said:

, spend from your savings to get below £16k, then let the taxpayer step in.

Step in to the tune of £380 a month for a working age single person… which means homelessness quite quickly?

That is the contribution based payment and, if you meet the criteria, including savings held, you would be entitled to income based benefits.

[Sheepshanks]

poo at Paul's said:

Don't necessarily disagree, (and it has been £16k for an awfully long time, too), but the law is the law, spend from your savings to get below £16k, then let the taxpayer step in.

I know people on UC pension credit who are saving £500 a month away, that is fundamentally wrong, and of course, after 32 weeks, illegal.

Did you mean 32 mths?

[Biggy Stardust]

119 said:

Biggy Stardust said:

Rivenink said:

So, it's fine to commit a crime as long as you mind your own business and don't ask for money ???

I didn't suggest anything whatsoever about committing crime- I suggested that those quietly minding their own business should have a greater right to privacy than those asking for handouts.

Why should they?

With a c£32bn black hole, it ain't all benefits 'cheats'.

Why shouldn't they?

I think I have the right to not be snooped upon unless they have specific reason, not just because they feel they want to. We have too many people snooping just because they can.

[119]

Biggy Stardust said:

119 said:

Biggy Stardust said:

Rivenink said:

So, it's fine to commit a crime as long as you mind your own business and don't ask for money ???

I didn't suggest anything whatsoever about committing crime- I suggested that those quietly minding their own business should have a greater right to privacy than those asking for handouts.

Why should they?

With a c£32bn black hole, it ain't all benefits 'cheats'.

Why shouldn't they?

I think I have the right to not be snooped upon unless they have specific reason, not just because they feel they want to. We have too many people snooping just because they can.

You ain’t that special.



They already know more about you than you think.

Anyway, this system is designed to supposedly detect inconsistencies which get flagged up, although admittedly, there is always a chance of false positives.

[Skeptisk]

Biggy Stardust said:

Rivenink said:

So, it's fine to commit a crime as long as you mind your own business and don't ask for money ???

I didn't suggest anything whatsoever about committing crime- I suggested that those quietly minding their own business should have a greater right to privacy than those asking for handouts.

How does society distinguish between people quietly minding their own business and paying all their taxes and those quietly minding their own businesses but committing tax fraud?

[Biggy Stardust]

Skeptisk said:

How does society distinguish between people quietly minding their own business and paying all their taxes and those quietly minding their own businesses but committing tax fraud?

No idea & not my problem. I still maintain that unless they have genuine grounds for suspicion they should keep their noses out of peoples' private business.

[oyster]

Biggy Stardust said:

Skeptisk said:

How does society distinguish between people quietly minding their own business and paying all their taxes and those quietly minding their own businesses but committing tax fraud?

No idea & not my problem. I still maintain that unless they have genuine grounds for suspicion they should keep their noses out of peoples' private business.

But they should be able to snoop into the 'private' affairs of benefit claimants even without genuine grounds for suspicion?

[Biggy Stardust]

oyster said:

But they should be able to snoop into the 'private' affairs of benefit claimants even without genuine grounds for suspicion?

If they don't like it then they don't have to ask for handouts.

[119]

Biggy Stardust said:

oyster said:

But they should be able to snoop into the 'private' affairs of benefit claimants even without genuine grounds for suspicion?

If they don't like it then they don't have to ask for handouts.

Have you just got a new roll of tinfoil?

[Killboy]

Biggy Stardust said:

Countdown said:

I wonder if the Government will introduce checking of ALL bank accounts and compare against tax returns

Those asking for money might have to surrender some privacy; those of us paying in shouldn't be subject to the same level of snooping unless there's reasonable suspicion of naughtiness.

Lol.

[bitchstewie]

I assumed between what banks report to HMRC and other financial reporting stuff that this info would already have been known.

[Killboy]

Biggy Stardust said:

I didn't suggest anything whatsoever about committing crime- I suggested that those quietly minding their own business should have a greater right to privacy than those asking for handouts.

Why?

[munroman]

matrignano said:

poo at Paul's said:

Unsurprisingly, a trial to get limited access to bank accounts for Universal credit recipients has found tens of thousands of people do not qualify for it. c.8% of accounts reviewed, with average monthly balances of £50k, the limit for claiming being £16k or less in savings.

link should be to story in the Mirror.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/dwp-finds-63...

£16k is fk all, especially if you're someone who's worked hard/a long time, managed to buy a home with a mortgage and are therefore not eligible to have your housing paid for you.

Particularly in London where mortgages and living costs are high, it would be quite easy to burn through £16k in less than 6 months. All this for a meager £380 a month UC payment which, let's be honest, doesn't really make a dent.

I am in this situation now and I am quite peeved off that I have paid hundreds of thousands in tax and the best I can get is £380 a month.

Other European countries pay a decent proportion of your last salary for up to 12 months, which is much fairer as you get back a fairer chunk of what you have paid in through the years.

The UK used to pay like this 'Earnings Related' or such.

My Brother in Law was a Newspaper Compositor, which was very highly paid before computer typesetting.

In the early 70's he got a job covering 6 months in the Scottish Daily Express.
It was something like £3-400 a week.

He'd then have the Winter off, still getting a high % of that pay, then restart the 6 months job.

My Dad was seriously pissed off with him, as he was on a fraction of that as a joiner.

Then Maxwell ran off with BiL's Pension, and he'd to work until 70!

[Super Sonic]

Biggy Stardust said:

I didn't suggest anything whatsoever about committing crime- I suggested that those quietly minding their own business should have a greater right to privacy than those asking for handouts.

Biggy Stardust said:

I need some way of hiding my assets from them.

[Scrimpton]

Biggy Stardust said:

oyster said:

But they should be able to snoop into the 'private' affairs of benefit claimants even without genuine grounds for suspicion?

If they don't like it then they don't have to ask for handouts.

Nonsense. They should snoop all taxpayers and benefits claimants or none. My massive preference is none - absent genuine cause for suspicion for both groups.

[matrignano]

JagLover said:

That is the contribution based payment and, if you meet the criteria, including savings held, you would be entitled to income based benefits.

As far as I am aware, the cap for both JSA or UC is £90 a week/£360 a month

[Skeptisk]

When it come to tax fraud a significant percentage of people are absolute hypocrites and full of excuses to defend the indefensible. Benefit cheats? Bang em up! Take away their benefits! But a bit of “creative accounting” is fair “because we are taxed too much”.

Was at an acquaintances house. He was showing me and the other guys at the party his track car (a very trick RX7). He said it needed some engine work. Apparently his accountant had said that he could claim it as a business expense. Despite knowing that was BS and tax fraud he was going to go ahead, no doubt stealing quite a few thousand from the public purse (and pushing the burden onto those who can’t escape taxes ie employees, consumers, etc) because “he already pays a lot of tax”…

[Terminator X]

Countdown said:

I wonder if the Government will introduce checking of ALL bank accounts and compare against tax returns

Careful what you wish for etc. you can see it coming #tinfoilhat

TX.

[Electro1980]

Biggy Stardust said:

oyster said:

But they should be able to snoop into the 'private' affairs of benefit claimants even without genuine grounds for suspicion?

If they don't like it then they don't have to ask for handouts.

You never get anything from the government? No NHS? Don’t use the roads? Never have your bins emptied? No children? We all get stuff from the government. Most get more out than they pay in. Most of us will get cash benefits at some point. You just hate poor people.

[Gecko1978]

Scrimpton said:

Biggy Stardust said:

oyster said:

But they should be able to snoop into the 'private' affairs of benefit claimants even without genuine grounds for suspicion?

If they don't like it then they don't have to ask for handouts.

Nonsense. They should snoop all taxpayers and benefits claimants or none. My massive preference is none - absent genuine cause for suspicion for both groups.

The simple distinction is one is being paid by the state the other is not.