Savings limits - time for it to be upped?

Yes of course the entire point is that people should use their savings to live on, to manage their period of time when they are needing UC.

If someone is working full time, even on minimum wage, then they are very unlikely to qualify for uc.

So they should then be aiming to get off uc.

I actually really like this idea.

This.

So you need universal credit because you can't afford it... Therefore if you can afford it you don't need universal credit.

Lots of people are claiming benefits due to being forced into high cost rentals. As the cost of these is then passed onto the tax payer, and that cost is ongoing, (as unlike a mortgage you can't take a break from your rent and you'll never pay it off), long term it would be more beneficial to the tax payer to help people out of that cycle.
To be clear, I don't think you should be making savings on benefits, but I think it's short sighted to force people who receive a lump sum (say an inheritance or redundancy payment) off of benefits for a short period of time until their money has gone, keeping them in rentals, rather than allowing that money to be set aside for a house purchase in future.

How on earth does owning a house make the way to get off benefits?

Presumably if someone is on benefits their are either unable to work or don’t earn very much. Owning a house won’t change either of those.

House ownership can’t be argued to be massively cheaper than renting these days, with most mortgages for 3 bed semi’s being around £1200 minimum and then full maintenance costs on top.

@Beezknees yes, when I was moved to UC from tax credits I lost money monthly as UC is less and I lost my help with (in my case regular) prescriptions and dental treatment. I now have to neglect my teeth in comparison to what I should as it's too expensive. Feeding my kids takes priority over hygienist visits. I became a single mum in devastating and unpredictable circumstances and managed through work and planning to keep the house to give my kids stability and myself a future free of housing benefit. We manage but money has become really tight over the last year or so. I hate the perception some people have that basically I deserve to struggle and I'm sitting around waiting for my next handout.

Two income family. No benefits. Couldn't possibly save that amount of money. So no, it doesn't need to change. That's a lot of money anyway.

The threshold for that is very low. You need to be earning less than £6k a year to be entitled to those things, it's usually people who are disabled/unable to work who are entitled to those. I have never been entitled to any of that during my entire time on UC apart from when I was unemployed.

You may earn more but there's a cliff edge in regards to help with dentist, glasses, prescriptions, etc. Go £1 over that and you lose the lot. Plus if some people work extra days that's extra travel costs

Why do we pretend that everyone on benefits is the victim of bad fortune? Of course there are people who genuinely are unlucky and they are absolutely who the system is designed for, but there are a hell of a lot of opportunists who will milk the system for all they can. This is why we need strict rules and regulations because people abuse any system that is designed to only help those with genuine need.

Disney had a similar problem with their Disability Access System that meant that people were using it as a free fast pass. The amount of abuse of the system was ridiculous and it really highlighted how selfish people can be. They didn't care that they were making the system worse for those that genuinely needed to use it to access the park, they just cared about their own entitlement. The whole thing became unsustainable and now the whole system has been reformed and stricter rules have been put in place that ultimately have detrimented some disabled people. This is what happens when too many people try to take advantage of a system designed for a specific purpose.

I do understand this but ultimately UC is paid as it is believed that people would struggle to survive without it. It is therefore still a safety net even when you earn a decent wage like yourself as in theory you still aren't earning enough to sustain yourself. Some people will never be able to reach this threshold no matter what they do but there are lots of people that choose slightly easier jobs/hours etc and top up their earnings with UC. That's what I think is wrong and why the £16k limit should remain. If you are saving more than that then you factually can afford to sustain yourself without UC.

It was hyperthetical anyway. I can't afford it but things like that need to be kept in mind.

Thought most people on UC actually had jobs. Hence the issues with low wages needing topping up

Yes the better solution is to get a job!!

To be fair, a lot of the time you'd have to earn a huge amount to get off UC completely. I earn £29k which isn't a great salary but isn't particularly awful, and I still get UC on that wage, I live in a cheapish area as well and do not claim for childcare costs as my DC is old enough not to need paid childcare. I can't even imagine what someone living in the south east paying over £1000 in rent and needing full time childcare would need to earn to get off UC fully.

Well you must get CB then on your wages

Yes but it also means that there is no point in trying to better your life because should you fall on bad times, the Govt will expect you to spend that first.... someone who has been feckless on the other hand, gets benefits from day one, benefits also reduce from about £6k, they go completely at £16k.

Its actually contributing to further entitlement.

Some other European countries have far better contributory systems, taking into account the previous salary/work record of the claimant.

Maybe technically you are, but when any pay rise is only at 45% of the actual value and then you account for the loss of UC and then you account for additional hours of after school care etc then people basically decide it isn't worth it and it's easier to stay on UC. You see it time and and again on MN so you can't tell me it's not happening. They basically see UC as the same as earned money and there is no real distinction between taking off the government and earning the money yourself. That's what I don't like! UC is a safety net but it shouldn't be a choice. If you are capable of earning enough to support yourself the you should really be trying your utmost to do this.

Yep, also you’d be paying more into your pension.

Because if you can afford to save enough for a whole new kitchen, you clearly don't need benefits.

You are perfectly entitled to save up for a new kitchen, but if you were able to do so you are demonstrating that you don't need the money being given to you to live which is what benefits are for, they are help from the government when you don't have enough to live on. If you can love on what you have easily enough to save such a large sum of money, you don't need it! Its not supposed to be a nice extra, it's a lifeline for those in need. The more people that have it that don't need it, the harder it is to give to those who need it.

The obvious solution is that the LISA (which can only be used to buy your first home, or accessed when you're 60) should be treated as the same way as pension savings when it comes to benefits i.e. not included in savings allowance calculations.

I think it should dramatically lowered.

You're always better off by taking a promotion/earning more on UC. For every £ you earn you lose 55p of UC, so the more you earn the more you keep. I get UC and the more I've earned over the years the better off I've been.

This is so boring! Landlords and employers have been absolutely crucified by successive governments to the point that many are selling up or hiring less people because they can't break even, let alone make these huge profits you seem to suggest. Open your eyes and look at the latest employment stats and businesses in distress indicators to understand the state of the economy and what we are dealing with.

It is always easy to blame someone else when in reality his forum is filled with threads from people that don't want to work more hours or take a promotion because they will lose UC and be no better off. The fact that they would support themselves and not rely on the government isn't relevant to them. Meanwhile people who are completely self sustaining are making these difficult choices and sacrifices and of course they are resentful of those that are doing less and claiming more. It is human nature! If you were on the other side of the equation you took would almost certainly feel similarly as no-one wants to be taken for a mug.