Council Tax - why do seniors have to pay the full amount?

I don't know what can be done about the abuse of blue badge spaces either by people who haven't got one or are misusing someone else's. I suppose one idea could be very harsh punishments and then word would get round

Oh for goodness' sake! The DT has regular advice columns about invesing money, of which this is one. This isn't an article about her being hard done by or her benefits. It's about how to invest a lump sum in these low interest rate days. The advice is rubbish anyway, because she won't get a full state pension. She'll have a considerable amount deducted from the basic amount, because she's opted out for so many years.

Our Tesco used to have a man who checked parking. I spoke to him when i had my knee done as I could only get in/out of my car if I could open the door fully, He noted my reg and said I could park in a disabled bay with no problem. Nice man, but he did tell me a tale. He spotted a police car parked in a disabled bay, when they returned he asked them if there had been a problem, they said "No, we were just getting some lunch", he had great pleasure in giving them a ticket.
On the A14 today in a traffic jam, there was a police van behind me with two women in it, the driver was on her mobile phone each time we stopped --- naughty.

But that would mean them having to hang around waiting for the person entitled/not entitled to the BB to return to the car.

It wouldn't be practical, although I know sometimes the system is abused.

My OH had a double knee replacement making life very difficult for a few months. He requested a temporary BB was was turned down. I fumed constantly when we had to walk long distances past able bodied people with BBs on their car taking up the disabled spaces. It should be mandatory for the BB to be displayed with the photograph showing and wardens allowed to give out tickets to the owner of the car if the registered holder is not in attendance.

Yes, it really is a non-problem, many people would read that and think 'Whaaat???'

PS I realise that she was asking how to achieve a £600 per month income to top up her earnings, but surely they could have found someone in serious financial straits to advise?

Yes, that Telegraph article is hard to make head or tail of.

The woman and her partner bought the property jointly for £135,000, so obviously they intended to share it.

But the 'expert' says

Moving in together has left Ms Bishop owing her partner £55,000 on the property purchase on top of the benefits loss.

She's got plenty of capital to pay the £55,000, a guaranteed pension sum and surely she can work more hours once the children are older? What a non-problem!

Sorry, yes, back to the OP...

Back to the OP - I don't think we should be given a discount on council tax just because we are in receipt of pensions.

OK, at the moment we do not get much for our money - but our children were educated and we may need help in the future (if any is available).

I think single person households should receive a discount.

Jonothan McColgan, director of Combined Financial Strategies and chartered financial planner, said:
I'm sorry that Ms Bishop has been caught by a strange and cruel quirk of the benefit system that means the decision to live with her new partner has cost her £900 each month in benefits.
Moving in together has left Ms Bishop owing her partner £55,000 on the property purchase on top of the benefits loss.
After deducting the money owed to her partner, Ms Bishop has savings of £111,000, which she needs to generate £600 per month.

I have no idea why this should be considered cruel, why a woman with that much money to invest should be considered hard-done-by because she has moved in with her partner (who presumably has a reasonable job) and is no longer eligible to be funded by the taxpayer.
She is a similar situation to my DIL who has taken a part-time, lower paid job to be there for her children - but is married to my DS therefore never been eligible for benefits either! Although DIL does not have a separate large lump sum to invest in property.

I am not sure if the person in the article is widowed or divorced or a single mother, but in the latter two cases there is surely a father somewhere who should be contributing to the upkeep of his children?

The article doesn't state how long she had been receiving tax credits,
The article gives me to understand that, before she had the children, she had a very well paid job as an accountant on £45,000 pa, since she had the children she has worked in a part-time term-time job to fit around the children which paid £8,200 pa and received benefits on top of this; benefits have now ceased because she has moved in with a new partner.

Helping an abandoned, single mother on a low salary with top-up benefits is one thing, but when they re-marry or move in with a new partner I don't see why the taxpayer should be expected to help fund their lifestyle.

But how many threads are there on GN with people saying that mothers should be with their children? Sorry, but she was a single mother, who had previously paid loads in tax and NI. The article doesn't state how long she had been receiving tax credits, nor whether she had previously been married/had a steady partner.

The fact that some ill/sick people are expected to look for work is a red herring.

The relevance of course is that the benefit system is very unfair.

I'm off to the naughty step don't worry. She gave up a job paying £45,000 to take a low paid one to spend more time with her children and then was paid £ 900 in benefit. When the sick are being forced to work I just found this strange, but then I am a simple soul and not very bright

Exactly! The benefits situation isn't really relevant to the article. The question is really about how the lady should invest a lump sum to give her income.

The benefit system is really complex and this case illustrates that - I think it's quite misleading as there are so many unanswered questions

Found it.

www.telegraph.co.uk/money/money-makeover/how-can-i-use-my-162k-savings-to-spare-me-from-full-time-work/

Firstly, she was earning £8,200 (not £45,000), which was why she was receiving tax credits.

Secondly, the article doesn't give precise details, but my guess is that she owned her own home before moving in with the partner, but has now sold the home and doesn't know what to do with the released equity.

She's asking for advice on how to invest the money. The benefits are irrelevant.

Maybe I'm being dense, but I don't understand the relevance of this to the thread.

Please could we have a link, because I couldn't find it.

Has she sold her home before moving in with her partner? In that case, it's just tough. If she tries to claim benefits, she will almost certainly be asked what's happened to the money. I'm not sure which benefits she could have claimed anyway, if she was earning £45,000. Nearly all benefits are means tested.

annsixty can you give a link please?

I really don't understand how she was getting benefits at all if she had that much in savings?

In the money pages of today's DT there is a question regarding a single mum who has !moved in with her partner. Because of this she is losing her benefits of £900 a month. She is asking advice on how best to invest the £168,000 she holds in cash. Should all benefits be means tested? She had been earning £45,000 but wanted to spend more time with her children.

I take your point.

I wish people would think about that kind of thing when they vote.

My point Daphned is that the council cuts mean that their priorities will often not be in line with ours eg I would like to see more rather than less spent on social care if you claim your discount and don't feel you should have it you could donate to a charity which supports those the council funding leaves short

CC your daughter should be able to get advice and help with her benefit claims from your local Citizens Advice. Give them a call or go on the website to see how to access them

What do you think the council does with the money in its coffers?