... in advance of the final version being published to the benefit rates area of rightsnet, a draft version of our 2004/2005 benefit rates poster is now available to download @

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/lasa_draft_rates_poster_feb_2004.pdf

please let me know if you spot any gremlins!

cheers - shawn

spotted one

... of course the lower capital limit for penison credit should be 6,000, not 60,000

thanks to essex benefits team ....

IS / ibJSA - rate for dependant child should be £42.27
Guardians Allowance - rate should be £11.85
IIDB - 18+ rate should read 24.02 - 120.10

thanks to jon @ lisson grove benefits programme -

Guardians Allowance shouldn't have note (c) against it

thanks to ian collins @ Cambridgeshire Social Services

highest is/ibjsa figure for the personal allowance for a couple (both under 18) should be 66.50, not 55.65

An updated draft of our 2004/2005 benefit rates poster (pdf) is now available to download here.

The new draft incorporates all the amendments highlighted above - thanks to everyone who has provided feedback thus far. If you spot any further gremlins, do let us know.

We'll publish a final version of the poster to the benefit rates area of rightsnet after the Budget on 17 March. (Plus a glossy full colour A3 version of the poster will also be available in the April issue of lasa's social security publication review).

SMP etc. I suggest the following footnote (n)to incorporate the 90% earnings rule.
Statutory Adoption Pay____102.80(n)
Statutory Maternity Pay
first 6 weeks___________90% earnings
then___________________102.80 (n)
Statutory Paternity Pay____102.80 (n)
(n)Earnings threshold is £79. If earnings are £79 to £114.22, then rate is 90% earnings.

Child dependant addition and footnote(c)'Reduced where CB is payable'. I suggest that ‘Child Benefit’ should be written in full, and also the footnote should read '...payable for the oldest child'.

cheers robbie ... we'll have a look at what we can do - shawn

thanks to Ian Collins @ Cambridgeshire Social Services ...

higher age related addition for Incapacity Benefit should be £15.55, not 15.15

I'd like to run something past the readers of this thread about tax credit thresholds, which is in Footnote (b). Where it says '£13480 if not entitled to WTC', I think this may be misleading: it implies that better-off families, eg on the family element only, have Tax Credits based on the £13480 threshold. In fact their Tax Credit is based on the £5060 threshold (except students, I suppose). So I've suggested to Shawn that this should read '£13480 if entitled to CTC-only'. On further reflection, I think '£13480 if eligible for CTC only' is better still. For comparison the CPAG WB&TC Handbook, page xvii, says:
First income threshold (WTC alone or with CTC)___
" " " (CTC only)___
regards, Robbie

here's the latest version, incorporating changes in response to the feedback we've received

thanks to everyone who got in touch

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/lasa_draft_rates_poster_march_2004_version_2.pdf.