Council Tax Benefit How many are aware of this?

[Nystagmite]

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/FinancialSupport/OtherBenefitsAndSupport/DG_068683

 

If you are aged under 60, you may be able to get this premium if any of the following applies:

 

• you receive Incapacity Benefit - long term rate
  

 

There is no disability premium within ESA.

[antone]

The sad fact of the matter overall is that the country has got no money left in the pot. It doesn't matter what political opinions you have, Labour, Tory or Lib Dem, it doesn't change the fact that there is no money left. Despite the savage cuts going on the reforms to welfare and everything else, as a country we are still borrowing more than we have coming in. The even sadder fact is our grandchildren are going to be paying for our problems as a result.

 

 

This is what we hear from the coalition spokespeople on a regular basis, but it doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. The UK is not a household - nation state economies operate in an entirely different manner. Once the economy has recovered, then we can look at reducing the deficit. In the meantime, the government should not be pursing a strategy of intentionally depressing the economy for purely dogmatic political reasons. Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman says it better than I could:

 

The bad metaphor — which you’ve surely heard many times — equates the debt problems of a national economy with the debt problems of an individual family. A family that has run up too much debt, the story goes, must tighten its belt. So if Britain, as a whole, has run up too much debt — which it has, although it’s mostly private rather than public debt — shouldn’t it do the same? What’s wrong with this comparison? The answer is that an economy is not like an indebted family. Our debt is mostly money we owe to each other; even more important, our income mostly comes from selling things to each other. Your spending is my income, and my spending is your income.

So what happens if everyone simultaneously slashes spending in an attempt to pay down debt? The answer is that everyone’s income falls — my income falls because you’re spending less, and your income falls because I’m spending less. And, as our incomes plunge, our debt problem gets worse, not better.

...

The big question here is whether the evident failure of austerity to produce an economic recovery will lead to a “Plan B.” Maybe. But my guess is that even if such a plan is announced, it won’t amount to much. For economic recovery was never the point; the drive for austerity was about using the crisis, not solving it. And it still is.

[estellyn]

if you have a web page showing this I would be grateful and then also have to apologise

 

than i can get onto my council and ask for all the underpayyments back. They have my applicable amount as £71.

 

If you're on long term incapacity benefit, your applicable amount for HB and CTB should be £71 + £30.35 disability premium. You should also be entitled to income support top up if you do not receive any age additions on your incapacity benefit.

[id6052]

if you have a web page showing this I would be grateful and then also have to apologise

 

than i can get onto my council and ask for all the underpayyments back. They have my applicable amount as £71.

 

 

Paragraph 12 &13 of Schedule 3 of Housing Benefit Regulations 2006

Paragraph 12 &13 of Schedule 1 of Council Tax Benefit Regulations 2006

 

Disability Premium

12. The condition is that—

(a)where the claimant is a single claimant or a lone parent, he has not attained the qualifying age for state pension credit and the additional condition specified in paragraph 13 is satisfied; or

(b)where the claimant has a partner, either—

(i)the claimant has not attained the qualifying age for state pension credit and the additional condition specified in paragraph 13(1)(a) or (b)is satisfied by him; or

(ii)his partner has not attained the qualifying age for state pension credit and the additional condition specified in paragraph 13(1)(a) is satisfied by his partner.

 

Additional Condition for the Disability Premium

13.— (1)Subject to sub-paragraph (2) and paragraph 7, the additional condition referred to in paragraphs 11 and 12 is that either—

(a)the claimant or, as the case may be, his partner—

(i)is in receipt of one or more of the following benefits: attendance allowance, disability living allowance, the disability element or the severe disability element of working tax credit as specified in regulation 20(1)(b) and (f) of the Working Tax Credit Regulations, mobility supplement, long-term incapacity benefit under Part 2 of the Act or severe disablement allowance under Part 3 of the Act but, in the case of long-term incapacity benefit or severe disablement allowance only where it is paid in respect of him; or

(ii)was in receipt of long-term incapacity benefit under Part 2 of the Act when entitlement to that benefit ceased on account of the payment of a retirement pension under that Act and the claimant has since remained continuously entitled to housing benefit and, if the long-term incapacity benefit was payable to his partner, the partner is still a member of the family; or ...

[Simon7685]

I don't disagree with you Antone, I agree that countries operate differently to households but irrespective of that, whether an individual, a household, a compnay or a country, if you have no money left to spend and you keep borrowing you are going to end up in the ****. That is the point I was trying to make really. Nobody wants to have to pay anymore than they have to, thats human nature but there has to come a point when the river runs dry and there isn't the money left to dish out. Sometime we forget about that as individuals and just assume that the it can't happen to the state.

[drop47]

Economics is not an exact science or we wouldn't be in the **** now would we. I do think this government has it wrong in they seem to be penalizing the least well off much more than the middle classes.

[count orlok]

Economics is not an exact science or we wouldn't be in the **** now would we. I do think this government has it wrong in they seem to be penalizing the least well off much more than the middle classes.

 

They haven't got anything wrong, they know exactly what they are doing. We are talking about highly educated people here, they don't make mistakes of this magnitude. They have engineered this so that they have an excuse to get rid of the welfare state for purely idealogical reasons. France if putting the top rate of tax up to 75%, we are cutting ours and making those most able too pay the cost.

 

Reduction in employment rights, abolition of the minimum wage and welfare state will put the country in the ideal position to take on the Chinese and the Tiger economies.

[redbat]

There are as many views on economics as there are shades of grey. I can not work out if you are pro or anti this government. However on the basis of politicians being highly educated and do not make mistakes of this magnitude are you saying Labour did it deliberately. They certainly knew it was coming long before it did

[count orlok]

I know it was Labour that went to war and bailed out the banks, but the Tories would have done exactly the same had they been in power.

[redbat]

I didn't say otherwise. But we bow have two opposing ideologies on how to get out of the mess. IT concerns me when you say that by dismantling the welfare state, employment protection etc we will be able to fight China and that politicians are highly intelligent and know what they are doing....that would see to suggest a conspiracy

[Simon7685]

I agree with some things from all of the political parties to be honest. No one party has got it all right all the time and never will. I know that Labour currently have to shoulder a large proportion of the blame for the mess we are in, the tory plan to cut the defeceit in principle is right, we need to control Govt spending to avoid running out of money like Greece and some others but there have to be easier ways to do it. Maybe they should all work together and we might get somewhere.

 

However we are drifting off topic now and the danger with that is we all start arguing and fighting and then people stop reading the thread. I don't want people to stop reading and contriburing to this thread as I think it is massively important that we try to keep this information getting out to as wider audience as possible. My guess is there are lots and lots of people who are thinking they do not need to worry about how much their CT bill will be because the benefit covers it......... not anymore!

[worried33]

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/FinancialSupport/OtherBenefitsAndSupport/DG_068683

 

 

 

There is no disability premium within ESA.

 

ok thank you, someone is working on my case to the council now about this for me.

 

I can confirm my income calculation for all HB and CB awards as far back as I can get are not including that premium.

 

Interesting my local welfare rights got it wrong also, makes me wonder if my council got it wrong for many people.

[worried33]

I agree with some things from all of the political parties to be honest. No one party has got it all right all the time and never will. I know that Labour currently have to shoulder a large proportion of the blame for the mess we are in, the tory plan to cut the defeceit in principle is right, we need to control Govt spending to avoid running out of money like Greece and some others but there have to be easier ways to do it. Maybe they should all work together and we might get somewhere.

 

However we are drifting off topic now and the danger with that is we all start arguing and fighting and then people stop reading the thread. I don't want people to stop reading and contriburing to this thread as I think it is massively important that we try to keep this information getting out to as wider audience as possible. My guess is there are lots and lots of people who are thinking they do not need to worry about how much their CT bill will be because the benefit covers it......... not anymore!

 

simon whats your thoughts on them cutting their own income tho?

 

as cutting taxes increases deficits. Also that it is entirely normal for a government to be in deficit, the way the papers have gone on about it made it sound like some sort of new huge crisis, yet history dictates our deficit is small compared to historical figures and its normal to have one. Its nothing more than social reengineering I am afraid, the government is far from broke.

[Nystagmite]

Interesting my local welfare rights got it wrong also, makes me wonder if my council got it wrong for many people.

 

I would be tempted to complain about this. DIAL (and CAB, I'm sure) have manuals on stuff related to benefits to ensure they give the correct information. And it's something you can find online too.

[worried33]

also I apologise for anything rude I said.

[drop47]

Worried. I am glad you are getting your benefits sorted out. I think you should think about making a complaint, of course depending on the outcome.

As said before the local government finance bill is not yet law so why have people not mobilized as opposed to just posting and hand wringing. I think i may just write to

my Tory MP.

Now talking about the deficit,firstly there is an argument that says cutting taxes stimulates growth and thus

revenue,just as increasing public spending does. Alas no government can just keep increasing the deficit year on year. The last Tory government cut it and alas labour thought the growth would continue so didn't save for a rainy day. I am no lover of the Tories.

[estellyn]

also I apologise for anything rude I said.

 

Its Ok, when you're trying to decide who's right, a real life adviser you see, and strangers on an internet forum, its not difficult to understand that you might find the real life people more credible.

 

Whoever misadvised you at welfare rights - they are insured and if you unable to claim back the full amount of the benefits you are entitled to (you should be for the HB & CTB, but not any IS you've missed out on since you were misadvised), then you can complain to the organisation involved and if your complaint is upheld, they have to compensate you for loss of benefits.

[count orlok]

Who would be the right person to ask about this whole benefits changes. I used to think i had it all sussed out and was looking forward to a quiet retirment looking after my wife. Now i am not so sure, are we going to lose our pension crdits, will UC have a carers premium? I get it for housing benefit will i get it for CTB?

 

What is the minimum amoung of food one can survive on? Every time you turn on the news or open a newpaper you read of another attack on the poor/sick/disabled!

[drop47]

I know it's because we are generally the ones with no access to the opinion makers. Also as a rule we are less well educated or articulate. Sorry to generalize but it's true.

[worried33]

Worried. I am glad you are getting your benefits sorted out. I think you should think about making a complaint, of course depending on the outcome.

As said before the local government finance bill is not yet law so why have people not mobilized as opposed to just posting and hand wringing. I think i may just write to

my Tory MP.

Now talking about the deficit,firstly there is an argument that says cutting taxes stimulates growth and thus

revenue,just as increasing public spending does. Alas no government can just keep increasing the deficit year on year. The last Tory government cut it and alas labour thought the growth would continue so didn't save for a rainy day. I am no lover of the Tories.

 

I agree with your comments, actions means more than whinging. My MP and counciller alrady know my views, but I think my MP is getting sick of me now.

[Simon7685]

Worried I agree to a degree that it is 'the norm' for most economies to incur or carry a deficit. The problem comes when the deficit continues year on year for a prolonged period. Then Govt bonds become worth less and the borrowing becomes more costly so the defecit increases faster, investors get nervous that a country will be less able to service the debt interest, so are less inclined to buy up bonds etc etc. so eventually you end up in a situation like Greece, Italy, Spain and the rest.

 

You cannot go on borrowing without consequence, lots of people have big debts on credit cards, which get moved from one 0% card to another until there comes a time when even though they might have decent income, there is nowhere left to move the debt, so they end up in a mess. I am no big fan of all the cuts that are going on, particularly to the most needy in society but I do think as a nation we did have to make inroads to trying to get the national debt down. I do think though it should start at the top with those who have the most contributing the most.

 

I think that the main problem that we have now has been caused by two successive long term governments. You had the tories in for 18 years cutting spending and actually leaving a budget surplus by the time 1997 came. Then 13 years of Labour going in the opposite direction, creating a boom, didn't keep anything back and the bubble eventually bursts, so you get the bust. Normally we get a one or two term government and then the opposition get in, so the effects of each others cuts or spending balance out sooner but when you get three and four term governments it gives each longer to implement their 'winning formula' and the effects of either cutting or spending are more harsh on the economy.

 

I think that neither party have a 'winning formula' their are good points and bad points to them all and the one thing they all make sure of, is that they are always okay. Generally the first thing that happens when one gets in is a pay rise, the other side bitches about it but never refuses to accept it. They all end up peeing in the same pot no matter what party they are from and they are all millionaires. They all get richer and we all get poorer no matter who is in but I guess someone has to be in power.

[worried33]

you realise the country didnt go bust, it was a worldwide recession caused by banks gambling carelessly.

 

and yes its quite normal for deficits to go on for decades. The surplus in 1997 is unusual for a government and looking at history for all major countries shows that what it is, an anomoly. Every so often countries do get a surplus but they are never sustained for long periods of time.

 

Sorry that you didnt address how cutting your income helps a deficit.

 

Ultimately if you have policies that promote economy shrinkage, a shrinking economy isnt going to get rid of a deficit. Are you suggesting now 18 years of tory hell with maybe a few years of surplus at the end is good for the country?

 

Alot came back from labour's policies, huge improvements in health care, whatever the NHS problems now I do know the NHS was a lot worse in 1997, big improvements to schools, min wage and tax credits all good things. Their growth of the public sector was an ecomony stimulation and it would have prolonged the boom.

 

A good comparison is to compare us with other european countries. You may be shocked by what you find.

 

Our tax is comparatively low, especially income and corporate tax.

Our welfare budget is comparatively low dispite the media crying.

Our % of GDP spent on healthcare is low, even with the bumps labour did.

We have less people employed directly permanently by companies and its more of a short term job market fueled by agencies.

We have a house rental market which promotes movement and lack of security for tenants compared to the rest of EU.

We were also the only country in the EU to reject a proposed financial tax, one has to ask why.

 

Everything about our policies is about hsort term profits for corporates.

[drop47]

Worried, while i have no political agenda i think you are forgetting a few things.

1) Our defect is getting bigger year on year. This is unsustainable. Having a surplus is not unusual because that is used to reduce the national debt.

2) We were loyally screwed before the election so you can hardly say all was well under labour.

3) Labour failed,in my opinion to be prudent. They knew the crash was coming,yet carried on spending.

4) The theory goes that if you reduce costs for business and reduce the higher rate of tax,businesses will be encouraged to grow,hire staff and thus boost the economy. Alternatively you can spend public money that you don't have and employee more people and hope to grow the economy. The downside to this is lower productivity,jobs that do not have a purpose etc. A prime example is the work on New St station. People are employed to stand by crossings or sit on platforms,it strikes me as being very very unproductive.Maybe if we had not spent billions on Afghanistan and Iraq we could have more. Reading your post it would appear that you are pro labour,as am i socially,however they are not really different to the Tories. Most of the things you are complaining about were not changed by labour

economy. On the other hand you can hardly

[worried33]

#4 is a bad theory and only touted about by the tires and the rich. Generally when taxes are cut it doesnt stimulate anything, it just makes rich people richer.

 

To get an economy movng you increase demand, thats it.

 

Cuts actually reduce demand.

 

Thats 2 people now in this thread who have mentioned deficits buit have failed to address why a government wanting to cut losses is cutting its own income deliberatly.

 

What happens to those people employed in what you consider useless jobs when you cut them as been wasteful. What you saying doesnt add up. If all wasteful jobs are removed then unemployment goes up. Your idea is just to improve things for the ones in work, but remove hope for those not and also to remove demand for the economy ultimately leading to a grim future. Not to mention what does it do to consume confidence when all the leader of the country can talk about is cuts and more cuts instead of investing in the future of the country. A prudent leader would be building things employing workers and stimulating the country.

 

Your first mistake is comparing a country to a company, a government does not exist to make profit, it is there to serve its people. We have businessmen running the country this isnt good. I see also you are blaming iraq and wars instead of the banks. The people defending the cuts seem very hesistant to blame the banks (who are the countries biggest welfare claimant) and also avoiding the subject of taxes. One company alone owes the country 10s of billions.

[drop47]

You misunderstand. I was not blaming anyone or anything. I was expressing options and different points of view. Your argument about the banks although in my opinion fairly accurate could be countered by the question,if Labour hadn't deregulated the industry would we be where we are now.

You dislike the argument put forward about cuts, i was saying it is a valid argument not the right one.

You say our income tax is low but how does it compare with the overall tax burden.fuel.tobacco.vat. Insurance tax.air duty etc etc. I do not know how it compares. Again you talk about the banks so i only assume you feel Labour are as much to blame as the Tories?