Savings limits - time for it to be upped?

🙄

Well they'd have to be frugal and save £10 a month for 133 years for it to add up to £16k.

People on benefits saving might be very frugal. Even £5/£10 a month adds up eventually.

It applies to almost all capital, not just savings. So an inheritance, compensation for an injury (unless you put it into a trust within a year) or wrongful dismissal, a property that you inherit and can't sell, a premium bond win, a life insurance payout, divorce settlement (although there's an exception if you're going to use it to buy a home).

And if you come into some money, and go on a mad spending spree, the DWP can treat you as though you still have it if they think you've done it to try and get/keep your benefits.

As you can see there are plenty of people on here who earn and are not entitled to benefits who are struggling to save at all, and definitely not that much so no it would be quite unfair to increase the limit. I'm a teacher and I've worked since I was 21, a mix of ft and pt when kids were small. Now mid 40's and this is the first year my financial situation has led to me having more than £1000 in my savings. The only benefit I have ever received was cb before dh's salary rose above the threshold. 16k seems a lot to me.

No it isn't.

Being denied the benefits you've contributed towards is the punishment.

No, she's talking about benefits.

No, because benefits are not charity. It's social security you pay into when in employment and should be able to take out when you need. At least contribution based benefits.

It isn't a punishment to spend your own money on your own living expenses.

The waiting time for appeals is now so long that a lot of my PIP clients end up with arrears payments of more than that. If they've still got more than £6k left after a year, they then have money deducted from their means tested benefits. I think that if you get, say 18 months-worth of arrears, it should all be disregarded for 18 months.

But I think the limits need changing, too. They've been the same since 1990. The BOE inflation calculator tells me that £16k in 1990 is equivalent to £38k now.

They will be quite soon with no money coming in.
Also, they are no richer than people who own cars or other assets.

In many European countries the right to job seekers allowance is universal.
The government shouldn't be telling people to save and at the same time punishing them for it.

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.

Tax credits are being phased out so everyone will be off them soon. Those with too high savings won’t be eligible for UC.

Yes definitely up it at least 25 grand! Maybe 30.
My dm in 70s got divorced and wasn't able to get any help she for some reason had to rent which ate away at her meager divorce money she was trapped age 70 so couldn't do anything.
She then ended up on benefits anyway and lost that little capital she had.

I don't have an opinion on the limit, but I have a severely disabled child and could claim the severely disabled element if I was to care for him full time. If I did this I would completely throw away saving a deposit to buy my own place and then might need housing benefit/social housing all my life. Imagine saving up a decent amount of a deposit, then frittering it away through being unemployed/made redundant or having to be a carer or ill with cancer for a couple of years. You'd just end up being needing housing benefit until you die, as there was no way you'd get that deposit back.

Then you have people who already own/have wealth in property getting the same. I don't agree with that. It's the same with WFA if you have savings you don't get it, but if you own an expensive 3+ bed property but are cash poor you get it. It treats people with wealth the same as people without it, but I don't think people should sell their homes, just people who rent should have a higher threshold.

I don't think this issue is a clear cut yes or no as people might think, and it's a bit more complicated than what they can get their head around. People are also forgetting that lots of people claiming UC are working couples and not all on national MW either. There is a childcare element to it that people use too. I don't think the threshold should be massively high, but it is at a point where people have to remain reliant on the system for housing and get stuck on UC too.

Ultimately, it is the problems in the country that have led to more benefits payments. work needs to actually pay more, housing needs to be built so we aren't paying tax payers money to private landlords, people need to have a less busy lifestyle so they can be healthier, and childcare needs to be cheaper. Failures in these areas is why we are in this situation in the first place. Changing a savings limit isn't going to change these problems.

They are stopping tc fully by next March. I think the taper rate of 6k is low, esp if you have to wait ages for your first payment and need a car for work. It's not just unemployed people who are on UC, many claim towards housing, as minimum wage just isn't sufficient. 16k I think is fine though.

Many people are still on them.

Tax credits don’t even exist anymore!

Most of the moaning about savings is done by tax credits claimants who don't realise how lucky they were!

I'm not allowed to save as much as those as tax credits though. Why is it one rule for them and another for everyone else just because the name of the benefits is different?

Most of the ones with savings will be tax credits claimants moving over. The ability to save on UC is significantly different to tax credits.

Surely you are allowed to save as much as anyone else? Being able to is another matter however.

Yes, they all count.