Savings limits - time for it to be upped?

It's a tricky one.

I think savings should be allowed over £16k if they're going towards a house deposit for example. Ultimately home ownership will cost the taxpayer less in the long run as it will save people claiming the housing element of UC. Some people in London for example are eligible for thousands in UC just to cover their rent.

But then I guess it would be tricky to manage.

I get UC myself and I have a full time job earning £29k. I can afford to save a bit, but not to the tune of £16k personally.

Ultimately, if people can afford to save while getting UC, most will just spend the money instead rather than risk getting penalised for saving. That doesn't help anybody in the long run. They'll get the same amount of money regardless if they spend it or save it so those who oppose people saving it are missing the point a bit.

@Goose38 you can save as much as you want! you just wont be entitled to benefits if you have over 16k and why should you be? if anyone has 16k then they are obviously getting too much in benefits anyway!! How does it improve your live if it is in the bank anyway?????

Are you serious? You think it should be raised to £28k? Why should tax money be used to subsidise people who have £28k in the bank? That’s a huge amount of money and of course people should be expected to live of it before they get benefit money. Benefits are there as a safety net not so people can keep large savings pots.

Not exactly the same circumstances.

Lives are all different, none of us have exactly the same circumstances as anyone else.

If you don't feel satisfied with your own situation, that's unfortunate for you, but comparing yourself to others won't make you happy.

Wish I had £16 k in savings!

I also think it should be lowered. Benefits should be an emrgency measure, not a lifestyle choice. Savings should be used before the state pays out.

So use them up. Put yourself in the position they are in. Money where your mouth is so to speak.
They are a privilege. Many people will never be in that position no matter what choices they make. They may have caring responsibilities which prevent them from working full time, a partner may pass away, they may be physically or mentally disabled.. there are many many things we don't have control over in life, and the fact they don't apply to you is a privilege.

It's pretty simple.

You should use what you have first before getting money from the state. Your savings should dwindle when you are unemployed. As should your disposable assets.

If you get an inheritance, proceeds from a divorce or anything else that makes you better off financially, then if course it should impact what the government gives you.

Benefits are supposed to be a temporary safety net for those most in need. I think being down to your last £16k is generous.

It's actually 6k not 16k, 16k is the cut off point it tapers I think personally you should be able to put money in a government protected account that you can't access and save more like for a house deposit or for a car without it effecting your benefits but you wouldn't be able to access it for anything else other than the purpose it was intended for that way people could move up the ladder

Why are you jealous then? Be thankful you managed to save enough.

"nothing stopping you quitting your job and living off of benefits"
Yes there is... I have too much in savings!!

"The majority of people on benefits are no different you know, just don't have the same privileges that others have"
My lifestyle/income/savings are not a 'privilege'. I have made enormous sacrifices and worked extremely hard to achieve them.
I started out in exactly the same circumstances as all those on benefits thank you very much.

I can't actually believe this post is real. If you have £16,000 in savings then you should absolutely spend this before the taxpayer gives you more money. I think it should be reduced to circa £5,000.

If employers were to pay better wages and landlords weren't so greedy maybe they could do without the benefits needed to make up the rest? You cant actually claim if you have more than £16k so no I don't have that much. I am bemused why so many seem jealous of those who claim (and who usually work).

They are disincentived.
It isn't the default.

But life happens.

A welfare safety net protects both society and the individual from the randomness of life.

Yanbu. It's not increased in line with inflation for a decade.
They increased the child benefit earnings limits so need to increase the UC ones too. Second hand cars have gone up a lot in the last decade. It's bad enough being on UC but trying to get out of it without any debt (and no luxuries) is added stress.

People should be disincentivised from claiming UC. It shouldn't be the default and people should be motivated to move away from UC wherever possible and to support themselves. The system simply isn't sustainable otherwise. If you have more than £16k then you can afford to sustain yourself for a period of time. You might not want to do this but the fact is that you can.

I feel like many on this thread think UC is an equivalent income to source to money earnt through employment or other ways that don't depend on the government handing you money. This is why people are happy to 'optimise'/milk the system and there is very little pride associated with actually being able to pay your way.

It reminds me of when posters on MN emphasis how important it is to be 'financially independent' and then it materialises that they get a huge amount of UC and financial support from the state. They are in fact totally dependent on the state and will have to jump through any hoops the government dictates.

That was my first thought, however I can see how someone who came into some inheritance, or got a divorce settlement or simply saved a deposit and lost their job may be in a position to buy a house in the near future, if they didn't have to spend this money on day-to-day living. Ultimately they would spend this in a year and then the government would end up paying their rent for who knows how long. There must be a better solution.

Lots of things haven't risen in line with inflation, the government should look to raise public sector wages in line with it before looking into stuff like this. Plenty of people have periods where they have to live off of their savings, can't say I can get too worked about it remaining at £16k.

If you truly believe that being 'feckless' is in fact a masterplan, just do the same.

If you're clever enough to spot the real winners in the system, surely you're also clever enough to do as they do.

Indeed - the long term suppression of salaries following the last Labour governments use of in-work benefits and massively expanded university education, to hide the growing number of unemployed, without any investment in areas that would absorb all these graduates is shameful. Watch for a re-run…!

But, as the average savings in the uk are around £11k and one would expect those on benefits to have a lower than average amount of savings the current levels seem fine, of not generous, to me. Sure, have a 6 month window or so,et ing where savings are ignore, but after that I fail to see why the taxpayer should fund those with way above average levels of savings. Savings are in part for a ‘rainy day’ , and if one’s claiming benefits that would seem to be a rainy, or at least gloomy, day and the time to use them!

Yes the savings level should have increased since 2010.

People aren’t poor if they have £16k in the bank.

We own our house. Why can't I save to get the damp course needed? Or the desperately needed new kitchen because it is affected by damp?

And why should I be penalised for needing to claim UC?