On Tue, 05 Dec 2023 15:06:45 +0000, Serena Blanchflower wrote:

> On 04/12/2023 01:49, JNugent wrote:
>> On 03/12/2023 06:15 pm, Fredxx wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/12/2023 17:08, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 03/12/2023 04:03 pm, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I suspect a lot of this nonsense happens because pensioners forget
>>>>> they are also benefit claimants.
>>>
>>>> Not all.
>>>> Not even most.
>>>
>>> If they accept a state pension then they most certainly are benefit
>>> claimants.
>>
>>> It's amazing how so many social parasite can't accept the idea;
>>> expecting everyone else pay taxes towards their pension.
>>
>>> I suppose many wouldn't see a parent or guardian claiming child
>>> benefit as a benefit claimant either!
>>
>> What do you understand the word "also" to mean?
>>
>> Having answered that question for your own consumption, you might want
>> to re-ponder the meaning of the claim:
>>
>> "...pensioners forget they are also benefit claimants."
>>
>> But why do you keep trying to equate the retired with social security
>> claimants?
>
>
> Not all social security payments are means tested. I'm sure you would
> have agreed that I was a benefits claimant, when I was claiming ESA
> (contributions based, non-means-tested) and paid by the DWP. When I
> reached the appropriate birthday, I stopped receiving that and got my
> state pension (also contributions based, non-means-tested) and also paid
> by the DWP. I don't see any justification for saying that I am no
> longer a benefits claimant.
>
> PIP, which I also receive, is another non-means-tested benefit but
> claimants are generally considered to be benefits claimants.

The other driver here, will be the Daily Mail fantasy that all benefits
claimants have 100" plasma TVs, a mobile phone for each room of their
mansion which isn't big enough for the pool they'd like.

Because I know this legislation will be used to "check peoples spending".
All in the name of "helping them" of course.

Other things to keep an eye on are this "Britcoin" that seems to be
stirring some peoples organs. Like all digital currencies it can provide
a currency with different values to different people.

On 06/12/2023 07:51, Jethro_uk wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Dec 2023 15:06:45 +0000, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
>
>> On 04/12/2023 01:49, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 03/12/2023 06:15 pm, Fredxx wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 03/12/2023 17:08, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 03/12/2023 04:03 pm, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I suspect a lot of this nonsense happens because pensioners forget
>>>>>> they are also benefit claimants.
>>>>
>>>>> Not all.
>>>>> Not even most.
>>>>
>>>> If they accept a state pension then they most certainly are benefit
>>>> claimants.
>>>
>>>> It's amazing how so many social parasite can't accept the idea;
>>>> expecting everyone else pay taxes towards their pension.
>>>
>>>> I suppose many wouldn't see a parent or guardian claiming child
>>>> benefit as a benefit claimant either!
>>>
>>> What do you understand the word "also" to mean?
>>>
>>> Having answered that question for your own consumption, you might want
>>> to re-ponder the meaning of the claim:
>>>
>>> "...pensioners forget they are also benefit claimants."
>>>
>>> But why do you keep trying to equate the retired with social security
>>> claimants?
>>
>>
>> Not all social security payments are means tested. I'm sure you would
>> have agreed that I was a benefits claimant, when I was claiming ESA
>> (contributions based, non-means-tested) and paid by the DWP. When I
>> reached the appropriate birthday, I stopped receiving that and got my
>> state pension (also contributions based, non-means-tested) and also paid
>> by the DWP. I don't see any justification for saying that I am no
>> longer a benefits claimant.
>>
>> PIP, which I also receive, is another non-means-tested benefit but
>> claimants are generally considered to be benefits claimants.
>
> The other driver here, will be the Daily Mail fantasy that all benefits
> claimants have 100" plasma TVs, a mobile phone for each room of their
> mansion which isn't big enough for the pool they'd like.

Yes, it's scary, the degree to which government policy has been shaped
by - and, on occasions has helped to shape - that fantasy, in recent years.

> Because I know this legislation will be used to "check peoples spending".
> All in the name of "helping them" of course.
>

Yes, I can see that happening, too :(

--
Best wishes, Serena
An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind (Gandhi)

On 05/12/2023 06:31 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
> On 5 Dec 2023 at 17:59:56 GMT, "Sam Plusnet" <not@home.com> wrote:
>
>> On 05-Dec-23 14:53, Max Demian wrote:
>>> On 04/12/2023 20:26, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 04/12/2023 05:20 pm, Brian W wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I'm not talking about me and you - my accounts are just as dull as
>>>>> yours no doubt are, and they'd learn nothing even if they looked. But
>>>>> are you really so confident that a future left wing government, say,
>>>>> wouldn't think this is a great wheeze to target its political
>>>>> opponents on the right? See what they've been spending money on
>>>>> (which if embarrassing could accidentally be leaked), tie them up for
>>>>> years in tax investigations. It's something that governments in other
>>>>> countries do, why do you think ours would be any different if given a
>>>>> chance?
>>>>
>>>> They can do it *anyway*. They'd just pass a Bill to enable themselves
>>>> to do it.
>>>>
>>>> But again, tell me why a civil servant would investigate the bank
>>>> account(s) of anyone against whom there is no suspicion?
>>>
>>> A sophisticated AI algorithm run on everyone's bank account could
>>> determine whether anyone is Up To No Good. Probably in 294ms.
>>>
>> Why bother?
>> It would be cheaper to dump the task of monitoring _every_ account of
>> people receiving benefits (inc. pensions) on to the banks.
>> They are required to report any suspicious transactions, so this can be
>> simply added to the bank's workload, and let them decide how to do it.
>
> What they couldn't do is correlate transactions between different people's
> bank accounts, a source of a great deal of information. And transactions
> generally don't have to be "suspicious" to generate useful information.

Indeed.

The Revenue's standard approach has long been to use the lifestyle
approach, which is to calculate an approximate total of the subject's
spending and ask the killer question: "How can you spend £x a month when
(you say) you have a monthly income of £x-£n?". None of the transactions
have to be for anything in particular. They just have to exist.

The interviewee then often responds with a claim that his girlfriend (or
at least, A N Other) makes up the shortfall and that this explains the
discrepancy. This usually leads to a request for statements showing the
steady transfer of funds (or settlement of credit card bills) out of A N
Other's account. Or sometimes that it is coming out of savings (another
thing which is easily provable by the interviewee IF it is true, with
statements showing not only the savings but also the attrition of those
savings over a period).

On 05/12/2023 03:06 pm, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
> On 04/12/2023 01:49, JNugent wrote:
>> On 03/12/2023 06:15 pm, Fredxx wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/12/2023 17:08, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 03/12/2023 04:03 pm, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I suspect a lot of this nonsense happens because pensioners forget
>>>>> they
>>>>> are also benefit claimants.
>>>
>>>> Not all.
>>>> Not even most.
>>>
>>> If they accept a state pension then they most certainly are benefit
>>> claimants.
>>
>>> It's amazing how so many social parasite can't accept the idea;
>>> expecting everyone else pay taxes towards their pension.
>>
>>> I suppose many wouldn't see a parent or guardian claiming child
>>> benefit as a benefit claimant either!
>>
>> What do you understand the word "also" to mean?
>>
>> Having answered that question for your own consumption, you might want
>> to re-ponder the meaning of the claim:
>>
>> "...pensioners forget they are also benefit claimants."
>>
>> But why do you keep trying to equate the retired with social security
>> claimants?
>
> Not all social security payments are means tested.  I'm sure you would
> have agreed that I was a benefits claimant, when I was claiming ESA
> (contributions based, non-means-tested) and paid by the DWP.  When I
> reached the appropriate birthday, I stopped receiving that and got my
> state pension (also contributions based, non-means-tested) and also paid
> by the DWP.  I don't see any justification for saying that I am no
> longer a benefits claimant.
>
> PIP, which I also receive, is another non-means-tested benefit but
> claimants are generally considered to be benefits claimants.

You have made the distinction clear: means-tested versus non-means-tested.

A pension paid by the Treasury (whether as the quid pro quo for a
lifetime's "contributions" or a lifetime working in the public sector)
is not the same thing as the principal poverty-relief schemes
(historically National Assistance / Supplementary Benefit / Income
Support / Universal Credit).

Is PIP "contributory", BTW?

I only have a hazy idea of what it is (yes, I know the approximate area
in which it sits, but not the details). Is it a passported scheme
(reached only via entitlement to ESA or legacy schemes like SB / IVB)?

On 06/12/2023 10:24, JNugent wrote:
> On 05/12/2023 03:06 pm, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
>> On 04/12/2023 01:49, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 03/12/2023 06:15 pm, Fredxx wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 03/12/2023 17:08, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 03/12/2023 04:03 pm, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I suspect a lot of this nonsense happens because pensioners forget
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> are also benefit claimants.
>>>>
>>>>> Not all.
>>>>> Not even most.
>>>>
>>>> If they accept a state pension then they most certainly are benefit
>>>> claimants.
>>>
>>>> It's amazing how so many social parasite can't accept the idea;
>>>> expecting everyone else pay taxes towards their pension.
>>>
>>>> I suppose many wouldn't see a parent or guardian claiming child
>>>> benefit as a benefit claimant either!
>>>
>>> What do you understand the word "also" to mean?
>>>
>>> Having answered that question for your own consumption, you might
>>> want to re-ponder the meaning of the claim:
>>>
>>> "...pensioners forget they are also benefit claimants."
>>>
>>> But why do you keep trying to equate the retired with social security
>>> claimants?
>>
>> Not all social security payments are means tested.  I'm sure you would
>> have agreed that I was a benefits claimant, when I was claiming ESA
>> (contributions based, non-means-tested) and paid by the DWP.  When I
>> reached the appropriate birthday, I stopped receiving that and got my
>> state pension (also contributions based, non-means-tested) and also
>> paid by the DWP.  I don't see any justification for saying that I am
>> no longer a benefits claimant.
>>
>> PIP, which I also receive, is another non-means-tested benefit but
>> claimants are generally considered to be benefits claimants.
>
> You have made the distinction clear: means-tested versus non-means-tested.

I don't accept that that makes any difference to whether someone should
be considered a benefits claimant though. I can't see how you could say
that someone on Income related ESA, is a benefits claimant, while
someone on Contributions based ESA isn't. If I had been suspected of
fraudulent behaviour, with respect to my ESA claim, that would have been
investigated and, potentially prosecuted, in exactly the same way, under
the same laws and by the same parts of the organisation, as if I had
been on a means-tested benefit.

> A pension paid by the Treasury (whether as the quid pro quo for a
> lifetime's "contributions" or a lifetime working in the public sector)
> is not the same thing as the principal poverty-relief schemes
> (historically National Assistance / Supplementary Benefit / Income
> Support / Universal Credit).
>
> Is PIP "contributory", BTW?
>
> I only have a hazy idea of what it is (yes, I know the approximate area
> in which it sits, but not the details). Is it a passported scheme
> (reached only via entitlement to ESA or legacy schemes like SB / IVB)?
>

No, you can claim PIP even if you've never been able to work. You can
also claim it while working. PIP isn't passported but it provides a
passport to some other benefits, such as Carer's Allowance. That said,
there is talk about combining the application process for PIP and ESA,
although I don't know how that will work, considering that the criteria
are very different.

PIP's intended to contribute to the additional costs of living with a
disability. There are two parts, one for Daily Living and the other for
Mobility, and two levels of payment, standard and enhanced, for each.

It's another one which is definitely a benefit and people who receive it
are, undoubtedly, benefits claimants, even though it isn't means-tested.

--
Best wishes, Serena
Q. What do you get if you eat Christmas decorations?
A. Tinsilitis!

On 06/12/2023 05:29 pm, Serena Blanchflower wrote:

> On 06/12/2023 10:24, JNugent wrote:
>> On 05/12/2023 03:06 pm, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
>>> On 04/12/2023 01:49, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 03/12/2023 06:15 pm, Fredxx wrote:
>>>>> On 03/12/2023 17:08, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 03/12/2023 04:03 pm, Jethro_uk wrote:
>
>>>>>>> I suspect a lot of this nonsense happens because pensioners
>>>>>>> forget they are also benefit claimants.
>
>>>>>> Not all.
>>>>>> Not even most.
>
>>>>> If they accept a state pension then they most certainly are benefit
>>>>> claimants.
>>>>> It's amazing how so many social parasite can't accept the idea;
>>>>> expecting everyone else pay taxes towards their pension.
>>>>> I suppose many wouldn't see a parent or guardian claiming child
>>>>> benefit as a benefit claimant either!
>
>>>> What do you understand the word "also" to mean?
>>>> Having answered that question for your own consumption, you might
>>>> want to re-ponder the meaning of the claim:
>>>> "...pensioners forget they are also benefit claimants."
>>>> But why do you keep trying to equate the retired with social
>>>> security claimants?
>
>>> Not all social security payments are means tested.  I'm sure you
>>> would have agreed that I was a benefits claimant, when I was claiming
>>> ESA (contributions based, non-means-tested) and paid by the DWP.
>>> When I reached the appropriate birthday, I stopped receiving that and
>>> got my state pension (also contributions based, non-means-tested) and
>>> also paid by the DWP.  I don't see any justification for saying that
>>> I am no longer a benefits claimant.
>
>>> PIP, which I also receive, is another non-means-tested benefit but
>>> claimants are generally considered to be benefits claimants.
>
>> You have made the distinction clear: means-tested versus
>> non-means-tested.
>
> I don't accept that that makes any difference to whether someone should
> be considered a benefits claimant though.  I can't see how you could say
> that someone on Income related ESA, is a benefits claimant, while
> someone on Contributions based ESA isn't.  If I had been suspected of
> fraudulent behaviour, with respect to my ESA claim, that would have been
> investigated and, potentially prosecuted, in exactly the same way, under
> the same laws and by the same parts of the organisation, as if I had
> been on a means-tested benefit.

You are arguing semantically.

No matter what terminology is used, there is a (big) difference between
contributory benefit and non-contributory (means-tested) benefit schemes.

One (the contributory pension) is effectively contractual, the potential
recipient never becoming entitled to the pension unless and until the
requisite number of contributions (of whatever amount) have been made.

Would you call a civil servant in receipt of nothing but their salary a
benefit claimant?

If you wouldn't, why not?

The money all comes from the same place.

The other (means-tested) is not contractual.
>
As I said:
>> A pension paid by the Treasury (whether as the quid pro quo for a
>> lifetime's "contributions" or a lifetime working in the public sector)
>> is not the same thing as the principal poverty-relief schemes
>> (historically National Assistance / Supplementary Benefit / Income
>> Support / Universal Credit).
>
>> Is PIP "contributory", BTW?
>> I only have a hazy idea of what it is (yes, I know the approximate
>> area in which it sits, but not the details). Is it a passported scheme
>> (reached only via entitlement to ESA or legacy schemes like SB / IVB)?
>
> No, you can claim PIP even if you've never been able to work.  You can
> also claim it while working. PIP isn't passported but it provides a
> passport to some other benefits, such as Carer's Allowance.  That said,
> there is talk about combining the application process for PIP and ESA,
> although I don't know how that will work, considering that the criteria
> are very different.
>
> PIP's intended to contribute to the additional costs of living with a
> disability.  There are two parts, one for Daily Living and the other for
> Mobility, and two levels of payment, standard and enhanced, for each.

Is this the curret version, then, of the former DLA?
>
> It's another one which is definitely a benefit and people who receive it
> are, undoubtedly, benefits claimants, even though it isn't means-tested.

The semantics here are being used as a weapon, as an attack upon those
who have never or rarely been a liability for the Treasury, in an effort
to somehow "prove" that work and earning a living don't matter.

RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
> On 2 Dec 2023 at 17:32:54 GMT, Iain wrote:
>
>> On 29th November, Stephen Timms criticised the government's plans
>> to inspect bank accounts. This is being proposed in the Data
>> Protection and Digital Information Bill, in two new amendments
>> (New Clause 34 and New Schedule 1).
>>
>> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UpNaf2dz1zU
>>
>> This includes the power to inspect those who are claiming social
>> security, such as benefits, or even state pension.
>>
>> Powers already exist to inspect bank accounts of those who are
>> suspected of fraud. But with these new powers no suspicion is
>> necessary.
>>
>> I seem to remember that there were similar concerns when the RIP
>> Act came in in 2000, nicknamed the Snooper's Charter.
>>
>> Are we allowing the government to have too much power?
>
> It's my understanding that HMRC already has (at least some) access to bank
> accounts.

At present, HMRC can issue a third party information notice to the bank, but they have to have reasonable suspicion that the information is necessary. These notices can be challenged, and if they are then HMRC has to justify its demand to the First Tier Tribunal. Sometimes it loses.

The function of this system is not to have the tribunal quash loads of Schedule 36 notices, but to ensure that HMRC checks it has the grounds before issuing one.
> When I looked into this, in the context of interest from savings, I gathered
> that tax would be deducted automatically as HMRC has access to this
> information.

Tax on savings interest is no longer deducted at source. I expect the banks still automatically report this information to HMRC though.

> For benefit recipients, the savings threshold is a key piece of
> information related to entitlement. It'd be trivial to match those above the
> threshold to benefit payments, I'd have thought.

Generally the records will be on different computer systems (DWP and HMRC).