Savings limits - time for it to be upped?

This is a wind up post

I agree.

It's difficult.

Someone (renting) may have saved years to gather a deposit on a property, and then made redundant from their job and have to live off this money before they can claim benefits. Their deposit is then gone.

Whereas someone else who owns a property, even if it's worth millions, can claim benefits if they become unemployed as long as they don't have £16k in the bank.

I don't think benefits should subsidise people who have a good savings pot, but the system can seem unfair (but then isn't life?)

I agree that if you can afford to save child benefit you don't need it. I would be in favour of it being scrapped and rolled in with UC.

I’d lower it too, I don’t think anyone should be claiming with £16k saved up. There’s plenty of people not in benefits who can’t save up anywhere near that amount. A small emergency fund like £2k should be allowed but no more.

Agree with what another poster says about social housing/private rented, there's such a massive disparity, it's very unfair.

I think the lower limit of 6k is very low. If you're in the private rental sector, much of that would be wiped out if you had to move. Not to mention the 5 week minimum wait for UC.

I think there should be some sort of taper, say if you've worked for the last 3 years you get Jobseeker's Allowance AND housing benefit, for a set number of months before it tapers down with no limit on savings, and then eventually moves to means tested UC - This would mean those who are temporarily unemployed are not draining their savings- this is how it works in most EU countries.

It should be lowered in my opinion to a small emergency fund or enough to save up and buy a second hand car say £8000. If you can save more than that you don't need government money.

I think it should be lowered if someone lives in social housing as they do not need to pay for boiler, roof etc repairs which is why home owners/mortgaged people need savings. If in private rented also need some savings for moving costs etc but maybe not as high as 16k.

I don’t disagree but there is a stigma that exists with a certain type of benefit and not with others. I don’t see people saying pensioners shouldn’t be able to save their state pension.

I would imagine the majority of people this affects when they first start claiming UC (or try to and can’t, as they have too much in savings) - either saved from earnings or inheritance or whatever, then they lose their job and find they can’t claim. Or people inherit while on UC and it gets cut off as a result. I can’t imagine many have saved the £16k while claiming UC!

It’s a tricky one when saving for a house deposit though isn’t it…I saw some people made redundant during Covid who’d been scrimping and saving for years and had a good deposit built up but not quite enough to buy yet. Lost their jobs and had to use up their savings as couldn’t get UC. Then had no deposit (or at least a much smaller amount) when they found a job again. Seemed a bit unfair, because had they just spent all their money when earning they could have claimed UC. I don’t know what the answer is though, because the funds have to come from somewhere and in general I do think those with the means to support themselves should do so rather than the tax payer funding them.

6 months wages for me. I earn too much for any help and run my household with 2 DC, alone.
Nope. It shouldn't be raised.

16k is enough for emergencies, that’s it really.

It's already tapered after £6k and stops at £16k

Exactly. SomE savings have to be allowed. But I also think that raising it wouldn't be right. I think it is quite fair as it is to be honest

No, it's plenty.

Good point. If you are so wealthy as to just save it all then may as well take it off them too. 👍

It doesn’t need increasing. Having more than 16k and being on benefits is like having your fridge full and still going to the food bank

A number of people use tax payers for their savings such as saving child benefit and it be seen as normal and sometimes actually encouraged. People should be able to make some savings and for those on UC without savings they are likely to end up paying more through poverty tax. So more tax payer money because they don’t have the funds available to them and have to pay higher interest rates. I do not believe the limit should be increased because £16,000 is a lot of money and money a lot of households do not have access to but, in an ideal world, everybody should be able to build up some savings.

People on benefits aren't supposed to "improve their lives"

Why should our taxes go to supporting somebody with 16k in savings? I receive no benefits and I don’t even have 5k in savings. If anything it should be reduced.

We have to allow some savings. You don't think I should have some set aside if my boiler goes whilst on UC? In a way if you can save whilst on that low an income it should be admired.

I am not talking the owning two houses and £50k of savings I have seen from tax credits claimants.

If you have 16k savings you don’t need benefits.

It’s a large amount of savings to have, so no I don’t think so - there is support already for first time buyers if you're saving for a deposit?

Sorry but why should I subsidise someone who has more than £16k in savings, when I, who works full time, doesn’t have that amount of savings? And I certainly don’t agree with it being raised.

Personally I think it should be reduced to £10k so if you have savings over that you use it to live on first,