Savings limits - time for it to be upped?

This is very true. There are a lot of elderly people we know nearby living off their own savings in threadbare homes while people we know on benefits get disability allowance in old age and grants to upkeep their property and spend willy nilly. They didn't earn it so don't care as much.

If you genuinely believe that to be true then walk the walk.. nothing stopping you quitting your job and living off of benefits if it's that easy and you'd be better off why don't you do it?
Because the reality is you don't want to live like that. Who would? It's shit. You probably want security in your home, not to be forced into high priced, unstable rental housing. You probably want to know you can meet the bills at the end of the month and have somewhere to live when you can't work any more. I'd imagine you'd like to be able to provide for your children if you have them. The majority of people on benefits are no different you know, just don't have the same privileges that others have.

Oh no, they can only keep £100 per month of the free pension that they didn't 'earn' by working and paying NI contributions, but rather by claiming benefits and being given NI Credits?

Whilst living in a home for FREE, and getting all meals and bills for FREE?

It isn't about jealousy and envy, it is a fact.
The feckless ones win in the end.

Are you having a laugh?

people really do expect things to be handed to them on a platter these days don’t they?

@byteme1011 why should the taxpayer pay for your upkeep when you have £45k sitting in the bank? I’m glad you didn’t get additional benefits in your situation. The limits are there to stop people grifting like you wanted to do.

When I’ve had periods of unemployment in the past I’ve done temp jobs like receptionist jobs to get by. Took all of 24 hours to get work. Obviously not a fortune in pay but it stopped me going on benefits whilst I looked for work.

Im sure you’ll have a reason why you’re entitled to live at other peoples expense whilst you preserve your cash reserves though….

It is low. It's just that wages are also ridiculously low and haven't kept up with inflation.

I did things like sell my stuff and not buy anything for myself apart from maternity clothes for now 2 years to save up. I'd have been better off not selling my furniture and spending all my money on clothes instead of being sensible. Why should I be treated so differently to another unemployed single mother just because I've been sensible?

By the way , I wouldn't have expected or wanted to get the full £2000 or so in benefits, but it annoyed me that I was locked out of everything + out of every other scheme because they're only available if you're on UC.

I also know lots of elderly people in a similar boat. Expected to use all savings to pay for expensive care whereas someone else who's been on benefits all their life gets everything complete funded including fitting a new bathroom and insulation in the house they owned. It's not just benefits, it's all the additional schemes which the savings threshold locks you out of.

Because benefits are there to help you when you're down on your luck, not to buy you a house. If you want to own a house you need to buy it with your own money.

If you already own your home and you lose your job benefits covering your mortgage payments short term until you get a new job would be fair but you can't expect someone living on benefits long term to be able to buy a house.

What I find annoying is how some people get a lot because they don't even attempt to save and some people get nothing because they saved. I get some people can't but it's unfair to penalise those who plan ahead sensibly.

My own example was that I found myself laid off while pregnant and my partner left me at the same time. I had been saving caredully for maternity leave and to pay for child care when I went back to work. When I went to the job centre to claim JSA when my child was 3 months I was told that I was eligible for over £2000 a month... but she retracted this because of my savings + I got my maternity pay in a lump sum, but this was supposed to last up to a year. I got JSA for 6 months and that was it. Also she told me about various schemes but all only if you get UC. Basically I would have been financially better off with no savings which shouldn't be the case...

It made me angry as I for once, after working for 20 years needed help and I was locked out of everything due to savings.

From what I've seen there are a lot of people who could save but don't. Also there are a lot of people who hide their savings and still claim, but I'm not up for dishonesty like that.

£16k sounds like a lot but my outgoings for bills and childcare are now £4500 a month (that's literally just mortgage, bills, nursery, minimal food) as I live in London so you can see why I was trying to be careful and create a buffer, but instead I used most of it just to stop myself from losing my house before I got another job...

So if you own your own home and claim UC you should never be able to replace your kitchen for example or other major home repairs. They would be paid for you and you would receive more “tax payers money” if you rented.
You should never be able to save a deposit for a cheap studio flat rather than rent and save “tax payers money” by no longer claiming the rent element?
I think £16k is a reasonable cut off for new claims or gifted money, compensation etc .However if you choose to save your benefits over a long period of time you should not be penalised for that.

What would be wrong with that?

If we would pay £800 towards their rent, why can’t we pay it towards their mortgage? One way means they get a house out of it and eventually won’t need / will need less benefits. The other way means the state pays the same but someone who already owns a house gets another house at the end.

I feel like changing that system is a win / win?

Fuck that! Why should I be penalised for not claiming UC?!

I think it might depend on where you live, if you live in London, rent a property and have all bills, rent
and food etc….esp if single, 16 k is not lasting that long!

also if you have saved the 16k and above you are, most likely but not in all cases, a higher tax payer - why then shouldn’t you benefit? Isn’t that the point of a welfare state?

jsa is £71 a week, £90.50. if over 25. Hardly bankrupting compared to the vast amounts we shell out on other crap. up to 6 months max of less than £100 a week to help someone to get a good job they are actively suited for and usually better paid = a lifetime's worth of higher tax and pension contributions, if graduates student loan repayments that would otherwise go unpaid = overall less dependence on the state. Apart from the moral benefit that we should be encouraging people to try and save money and support themselves long term, not punishing them for it.

Other countries don't do this one-size-fits-all punitive system. Germany, for example, pays unemployment benefit at a percentage (60% I believe) of your last job if you've been in work for a set period = actually rewarding people who work hard, save money, and are actively looking for another job, rather than playing the game with occasional short term part time work and coming on and off benefits.

I mean I've paid tax other than those 6 weeks I was unemployed - how am I not hard working? My company went into administration - I don't think that was my fault? Admittedly I had saved too much but it was still a kick in the teeth when I lose over a grand in a tax a month into a system I couldn't claim from

I think the logical answer is that you should be allowed to save in a government backed deposit scheme on the proviso that you are not entitled to withdraw the funds for anything other than a house deposit. This would enable savings for this purpose but retain the cap of 16k for people who own property already.

^^
Well said. A bit of common sense at last on this thread.
If we can support people on low incomes to be able to buy their own home it will save the state in the long run because taxpayers won't be paying housing benefit to pensioners if they have managed to buy their own home. If someone is renting until they the tax payer is paying HB until the person dies.
We should be encouraging saving.
It is recommended everyone has 3-6 months of expenditure as savings.

But the if the state paid housing benefit to pay the mortgage then the government is buying property for people, that's why housing benefit isn't given to homeowners.

@FedupMum2024
Care home costs are not free for those who don't have savings or property to sell. They have to pay all their state pension apart from an allowance of about £25pw they keep for clothes, toiletries, newspapers etc.
I wish people would get their facts right when they are slagging off poorer people.
All this jealousy and envy makes me sick.🤢

But how can people save for a house deposit with hardly any savings allowance? An average house is 300k ish - minimum 30k deposit. More in a lot of places.

A lot of it is people who get a small windfall of some sort - inheritance or divorce funds but if it isn’t enough for a house deposit right then. If they could add to it to build it up it would mean they’d eventually own their own home. Trapping people on low incomes helps no one.
similarly I think it’s ridiculous that we pay rent not mortgage costs - if we pay the mortgage they’ll eventually own their property and the payments by the state would stop. If we pay the rent, eventually a rich landlord’s mortgage will be paid off, the uc claimant will still own nothing and the state will be responsible for them/ their care into old age. It’s such a short sighted system

Many people on UC are working.

It has to be a wind up.
It's definitely bringing out the mean spirited posters. Sound either jealous or they are right wing Tories of the Liz Truss or Keli Badenoch mould.
If you think people on UC shouldn't be allowed to have savings up to £16k, then why can people claim child benefit on salaries up to £80, and they could be a 2 income household?
Talk about kicking people when they are poor.

It’s not generally that people have saved while on UC but that when they come to claim they are not entitled as they have skimped and saved. It’s probably best to just spend your money and enjoy it. A large amount of people receiving UC are working.
Savings can also be, for example, where a parent has died and left a fairly small amount of life insurance, the widow would not be eligible for UC but someone divorced receiving a large amount in child maintenance would.

Everyone should be encouraged to save if they can. What if a homeowner needs a new roof or a new boiler and they have virtually no savings because the limit is so low. What if they need to pay for a funeral or their relationship breaks down and they need a deposit on a rental?

Who are these people you speak of? Do you know them? And the actual ins and outs of their finances? Or are you reading too much of the daily mail and making assumptions? Maybe they were given a phone? Maybe they shop at waitress because it's their local shop and they can't afford to run a car to go to the cheaper shops? What deals? Do you know how much basic food costs when you don't have a choice on where you go? How do you know they can afford the gas/electricity to cook from scratch and aren't using ready meals done in the microwave instead? What makes you think they have time and/or energy to cook from scratch every day or batch cook if they're working a low paid manual job? Ironically lots of things can be done cheaper when you have money!