Advanced search

Universal Credit should relax £16,000 savings eligibility rule

(662 Posts)
DreamChaser23 Thu 02-Apr-20 12:16:25

do you agree? This is to ensure other workers who were laid off and have 16k OR higher in savings should also be eligible for help.

OP’s posts: |
VettiyaIruken Thu 02-Apr-20 12:18:31

That's what savings are for. To use in an emergency.

Money should go to those who need it. Not to people with thousands or tens of thousands so they can keep their savings.

Giving according to need imo

anothernewone Thu 02-Apr-20 12:19:18

No. If you have over 16k savings you should use them first.

LooQoo Thu 02-Apr-20 12:19:44

Yes, I agree.

What about people who have been scrimping and saving to get a house deposit together, for example. If they’d pissed it all up against the wall, they’d get UC but as they’ve saved, they won’t.

Our system doesn’t reward the sensible, unfortunately.

Notabadger Thu 02-Apr-20 12:20:16

Don't see why this should be different from people who lost their jobs 6 months ago? Was it ok for those people to use their savings up first?

Pineapple5678 Thu 02-Apr-20 12:20:39

So what would you set the limit at? 20k, 50k , 100k? As poster above said savings are for an emergency and once reduced below 16k they will have an eligibility for universal credit.

JustAnotherPoster00 Thu 02-Apr-20 12:21:21

This is going to go well, so I'm grabbing some popcorn and heres a snack for you OP


TallRachel Thu 02-Apr-20 12:21:43

100% agree. People who have chosen to be frugal are being unfairly penalised by being told to use the disposable income that they have set aside. Others who have spent all their disposable income over the years are getting free money from the government. I think a bar should be set but much higher than £16,000.

bushhbb Thu 02-Apr-20 12:21:53

So what on Earth are savings for, if not an emergency. Pure greed, you don't need UC then

WhatWouldYouDoWhatWouldJesusDo Thu 02-Apr-20 12:23:45

No. They shouldn't.........although I'm mildly amused that since this pandemic has affected so many people deemed as hard working and worthy that UC is finally being seen as a ridiculously low sum to live on and the red tape absolutely unnecessary when it was seen as fine before.

Almost looks like all those families who suffered alone in previous years were under deliberate torment from the government (( I'd say torture but don't want to be seen as hysterical )) hmm

mrshoho Thu 02-Apr-20 12:24:31

As @Notabadger says, would you have thought this 6 months ago when people were using their savings if they had them?

Peppafrig Thu 02-Apr-20 12:24:53

People have had to use up savings when they lost their jobs and had savings for many many years. Those losing jobs not are not special cases. They same rules should apply to all. Unless they backdated universal credit to all those who got turned down for it for having savings in the past 10 years.

pocketem Thu 02-Apr-20 12:25:18

what on Earth are savings for, if not an emergency

A deposit for your first house, that you've been saving up for five years while scrimping and living on beans?

A wedding that you've been saving up for for two years?

A car purchase that you've saved up for diligently while others took out PCP or other loans?

Deathgrip Thu 02-Apr-20 12:25:23

Right, so the typical scumbag benefit claimants should damn well use any savings before they claim, but the well off, most likely temporarily unemployed should get to keep their savings and still claim?

I’m seeing so much of this lately. SSP is paltry? Trying living on carers Allowance indefinitely (30% lower). The savings limit is unfair? Didn’t bother you when it was other people being laid off any other time and struggling to get back into work.

As always, people think nothing of all this until it affects them. Suddenly, after years of crying that benefits claimants have it so easy, some are suddenly facing the reality of surviving on universal credit and it’s not very palatable.

I hope people remember this when the next GE rolls around, but I won’t hold my breath.

LooQoo Thu 02-Apr-20 12:25:47

But what about their tax and NI contributions. Should they not be taken into account?

It’s not fair to pay into a system for 20 years and then be told that you can’t get anything back from that system as you’ve saved, rather than spent.

Longer term, you need to think about how happy people are going to be contributing into a system for others to take from. A successful welfare state needs everyone to feel like they have a stake in it.

TallRachel Thu 02-Apr-20 12:25:49

Savings could be for anything. What if somebody saved up for their kids wedding fund, or to help with a house deposit and are now being told then have to use it because the government has said they cannot work. Whereas people who have been wreckless over the years spulrging their money on German cars on PCP for example are now being gifted money.

Stevienickssleeves Thu 02-Apr-20 12:27:47

No absolutely not. This shows a total lack of perspective.

bushhbb Thu 02-Apr-20 12:28:36

*A deposit for your first house
... is not essential. Greed, as I said. I'm also saving for a deposit. If you have over £16K you do not need government assistance.

LizzieMacQueen Thu 02-Apr-20 12:28:39

Agreed OP. Sensible savers penalised again. Same for the older generation going into care. Those who've been careful and have some financial security end up paying from their savings.

For me, savings are for the big ticket things, house deposits, once in a lifetime holidays (or dare I say, weddings).

Lots of the newly unemployed will have savings over £6,000, the point at which savings make an impact for UC.

Does anyone know if 'savings' in an offset mortgage scenario count towards the limit?

teenagetantrums Thu 02-Apr-20 12:29:25

No. I have lived on benifits in the past. It's not meant to be easy. If you have savings you use them. It makes me so cross that appently now coronviris has arrived ssp and benifits not enough to live on. Was good enough for people until last month. How the hell do you think rest off us coped when our lives went to pot before this

onetimeprepper Thu 02-Apr-20 12:29:32

This thread is just going to be a case of people with savings agreeing and those who live payday to payday disagreeing.

IsadoraQuagmire Thu 02-Apr-20 12:30:37

I totally agree.

Peppafrig Thu 02-Apr-20 12:30:51

Not the case at all @onetimeprepper

bushhbb Thu 02-Apr-20 12:31:09

Weddings and cars being used as an excise to scrounge UC is laughable. You use your saving a first, before hoarding money form the government's

Marieo Thu 02-Apr-20 12:33:18

Surely part of sensible saving is saving for unforseen circumstances, like this. £16k is a fair amount, we are already doing to be financially screwed as a country, without people who have savings which equal more than some 'key workers' get a year are having some of the pot. As has been said as well, there are people who have been laid off before this who weren't given any flex on the rules, what's so different? Most of them will have lost their jobs because of circumstances out of their control. I blitzed through my savings when I was laid off previously, so I'm not talking hypothetically. Everyone needs to remember this isn't 'free' money, but there for those who need, ie not those with a large safety net in the bank.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Get started »