Savings limits - time for it to be upped?

It isn't ok to scrounge ever. This is why there is such an outcry when public figures are found to be doing it. I agree that all strata of society have morally dubious people in them and scrounging definitely isn't limited to those with limited financial means, but we should be discouraging everyone from doing it rather than turning a blind to some because others do it. Whatever happened to pride l, self respect and personal responsibility?

You can always argue that someone that is more financially secure could save the state money in the long term. Lots of people are trying to save for deposits for houses or for a nest egg that will be a financial cushion should they enter a crisis. They don't appreciate being taxed excessively so their tax money can be used by UC claimants with over £16k in savings to buy a house that the tax payer can't afford themselves. It's really not that hard to understand!

@NotOneOfTheInCrowd the 'state' don't pay towards a mortgage. So if someone on benefits inherits money and uses it to put a deposit down and get a mortgage, they'd loose the rent element from UC meaning they may get no UC rather than £1000 to pay their rent. So the 'state' is actually better off if people on benefits manage to buy their own houses. But as it happens if you inherit money you loose UC until you are back below 16k, so you don't get to get that mortgage and the state pays your £1000 rent for your whole life. (Obviously rent varies and some people do manage to get mortgages on benefits, but my point remains the same).

Should people on benefits be buying their own homes though?

After all if you’re saying someone should be able to save their benefits for a house deposit, and then get a mortgage which is then also paid for by the state, then you’re saying that the state should give houses to those on benefits for them to sell and then make a profit from. I don’t think so.

See celebrities, politicians, religious figures and royal families. Asset rich people who are constantly on it.

Why is it OK to scrounge if you are already wealthy, but if you are trying to save money to put a roof over your head and no longer ve in insecure accommodation it isn't? I'm not saying people should be forced to sell their homes,but I don't think these rules are equal. I think 16k is about right if it is just savings, but if you are saving for a home it should be protected. Not sure how. These things are difficult to put in place which is why there are blanket rules.

Benefits are there for people who have nothing else. They are not a reward for saving hard before your life went to shit. Some people on this thread are coming across as entitled. They want to keep their savings yet still get help from the state.

I agree. I’ve felt angry after reading some of the posts on this thread from people who feel the world owes them something. Scroungers.

Same.
Benefits are there for people who have nothing else. They are not a reward for saving hard before your life went to shit. Some people on this thread are coming across as entitled. They want to keep their savings yet still get help from the state.

Although saying that, contribution based benefits (such as some ESA) is non-means tested so savings are disregarded, but you need to have made enough NI contributions 2 years before, and you can only stay on it for 365 days. ESA is also for people too poorly to work, and not people who have simply lost their job.

I wouldn't have a savings limit at all for contributions-based benefits. It's a social insurance system. If you pay in, you should be able to take out. It's also unfair because people with assets of that value, eg cars and jewellery can still claim.

what madness is this?
So you could have £300,000 in the bank, lose your job and be entitled to benefits?
Paying your tax and NI isn't a savings scheme to access when you're out of work, benefits are for those in need, if you have savings live off them.
I'm amazed people have these weird ideas.

No, I'm not bitter at all. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of all these people saying those with savings shouldn't be helped, but it's OK for those with cars or whatever and those who see the benefits system as a charity rather than something you pay into.
I live in a country with no savings limit so I see how it can be done.

Social security IS a redundancy policy so I'm not being one, thanks.

Ahhh you are bitter.

You worked. Saved. Have liquid assets and investments. Lost your job and thought - I'll pop in a claim, and the found out about the cap and are annoyed.

But... There are some assets (which you don't have (eg a car)) which is disregarded.

I get you don't like the rules of the scheme- but, the government pays a subsistence amount...to those that meet certain criteria.

As I said, you want a redundancy policy- you can buy one.

If you want different T&C to the ones on offer- buy a different policy.

Same with healthcare, education etc if you want something that's different to what's on offer, fund it yourself

Social security IS redundancy insurance. That's what it is meant for!

My point was that if those on benefits can find a way to save then those not on benefits should be able to as well.

'take out it necessary '... Um yes. If you have more than £16k, it is not necessary for you to take out funds as you have liquid assets that can be used.

Buy redundancy insurance if you want something over and above this.

So people should waste their money on things just in case they need benefits in the future?

It's perfectly fair. We all have equal opportunity to save or spend our spare cash.

"And unless you want to start itemizing every claimants house it's nonsense anyway."

Well, exactly so it's not fair.

Yes, saving for when they need it.
And unless you want to start itemizing every claimants house it's nonsense anyway. Why stop at cars? Someone posted about a £4k recently, isnt tjat as much an asset as a car? Where does it end?

I agree but good luck in getting the Treasury to agree.

They had the choice, but had been told all through their lives that they should be saving and that cars are bad for the environment. Pretty shit then that those with cars can get the benefits and the others cannot.

I mean if they do it the day before they start claiming that would be fraud. But they have been to spend over the period of saving. They have had the choice.

The only problem I have with this is that it makes it impossible to save for a house deposit, so unless my wage increases drastically, I will never buy a house. Though I think the housing crisis is the main issue here.

"Reducing your money, savings and investments on purpose
If you knowingly reduce your money, savings and investments, or transfer them elsewhere to get or increase your Universal Credit, this is known as ‘deprivation of capital’.
You have not knowingly reduced your money, savings and investments if it has been used to:

• pay off or reduce a debt
• pay for goods and services that were reasonable in your circumstances

• knowingly reducing your money, savings or investments
• deliberately giving false information about your money, savings or investments"

If it's done to be eligible for benefits then yes, it's fraudulent. It's strange that you think that's OK, but having money is not.

It's not fraudulent to buy a car, there's nothing stopping them buying a car.

In my case, I was saving while I was working. It's obviously not possible to save on benefits.