Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
'May' face a custodial sentence does not mean 'will'. The letters will be standard letters with carefully crafted legal wording. It's quite right that HMRC share earnings details with the DWP to ensure the benefits system remains robust.
|
This wasn't a standard letter, he has lost his appeal and been told that he may go to prison. Nobody will know until the outcome until the case has been heard. Being told that you only "may" be going to prison must be very frightening for anybody, let alone an elderly man.
The salient point I am making here is that this man has saved the country a fortune and given his son a better quality of life by caring for him for less than someone gets on the dole. In return the DWP are going to put him through the ordeal and shame of a court appearence. Even if he doesn't end up in prison, the cost of the trial will be wholly disproportionate to an average overpayment of 35p a week.
How it works with Carers Allowance is that, as soon as the earnings limit is reached, the whole of the benefit is cancelled- there is no taper. By working at night after caring all day, he did not need to claim Income Support to top up his Carers Allowance.
The DWP have, therefore cancelled his CA and worked out that he would have been entitled to Income Support even after taking his earnings into account. On occasion, he wouldn't have been entitled to I/S, resulting in an average O/P of 35p a week.
HMRC have only been sharing earnings details more quickly relatively recently, so problems like this shouldn't be happening in the future. Claimants will then know whether It's worth reducing their hours or stopping remunerative work altogether. What they have been doing to carers is going back as long as 20 years to try and find any overpayments that they can raise.
It would serve the Government right if carers said sod it, you can pay for them to be looked after yourself, but they take advantage of the fact that carers often love the person they care for.
It beggars belief that these people, who save taxpayers a fortune and improve the quality of life for some of our most vulnerable citizens, are being treated like criminals, in this case, for 35p a week.
---------- Post added at 15:11 ---------- Previous post was at 15:07 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
In both of your analogies Person A and Person B have lifestyles over and above the minimum that the welfare state should provide.
Establishing savings of £16 000 at say, £20 a week, would take 15 years. Someone on benefits, in these times of austerity, able to do so is likely to be committing benefit fraud.
|
In the examples given, both are working and not on benefits. I'm talking about the time when they need to claim benefits due to sickness or unemployment.
Means testing would result in the prudent person getting nothing and the feckless person getting the maximum help available. This wouldn't encourage people to save, which is what the Government wants to encourage.