To wonder why the UC savings threshold is £6,000?

Exactly and what's the plan i will be on uc for life due to disability so make me homeless i then have to rent somewhere which means I then claim the rental part of uc which means all of sudden instead of getting £800 a month uc il suddenly be getting say £1500/£2000 a month yeah that will really save money 🙄

It’s pointless arguing. The poster clearly despises homeowners. There’s a simple reason the home you own and live in isn’t included in the capital calculation for benefits. It’s because you need it to live in.

I’ve seen some ill considered ideological crap spouted on MN, but this definitely wins the internet prize for the most ludicrous, unfair and unworkable suggestion ever. We all pay tax and NI to pay for benefits when we need them. Asking homeowners to effectively pay twice won’t fly.

You’re trying to defend the indefensible. Why is it right or fair a homeowner’s capital is kept indefinitely but a renters meagre savings are fair game? Equality of treatment important as know a few owned outright homeowners using means tested benefit rules at present like a hammock. Taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for someone else’s inheritance full stop. As someone else said benefits (means tested) are there for a safety net but that should be up to a point.

Tbh the most logical solution is to carry on as we are re homeowners being equally eligible for benefits they don't have to pay back and for the savings cap to rise with historic inflation. Then we can start to think about how to protect savings for deposits, the cost of which has surely risen higher and faster than any government of three or four decades ago could possibly have imagined! It's not unreasonable to save for a deposit and also have some savings for emergencies.

We all pay 6% of our tax into the benefit system as we may all need it someday. What would you do if you lost your job, your partner died, you have an accident or illness and become to ill to work, what if your child becomes disabled, what if you suddenly had to escape domestic abuse. People who own their own homes get significantly less uc then those renting

But the most logical solution is that we remove the cap for people who rent and maybe we don’t remove the cap for people who have other assets so maybe we make benefits to people who have 50,000 or less in accessible assets which wouldn’t count bricks and mortar.
But it would allow somebody to save for a house deposit
But as I alluded to further up the thread and I’m not getting into how I know this the Dwp are not entirely in flexible when it comes to these things
They do look at individual circumstances as to how and why people have acquired things and what the long-term purpose of them is

We all pay 6% of our tax into the benefit system as we may all need it someday. What would you do if you lost your job, your partner died, you have an accident or illness and become to ill to work, what if your child becomes disabled, what if you suddenly had to escape domestic abuse. People who own their own homes get significantly less uc then those renting

I'm not sure you'll ever find a completely fair way of organising a welfare state. There have to be pragmatic choices within an imperfect system.

I’m saying by all means claim means tested benefits when your worth is tied up in bricks and mortar, but on the proviso that you repay tax payer % or amount even a proportion at a later date via a charge when the property is sold… it’s no longer bricks/mortar, it’s cash in bank and so should be treated no different to a renters savings or way capital is for care home fees. Someone with hundreds and thousands in property equity is much better off and not destitute vs a renter with just £5k to their name.

You’re using a meritocracy argument. Many renters work exceptionally hard too, they just don’t have a hand up or head start. Is it fair renters pay extra tax to pay for those who own and have much more meaning they are held back? Why should homeowners keep equity in full when house is sold, yet renters keep before taper just £6k and must pay tax to cover the £s to those much wealthier? Renters must use up their savings but homeowners get to keep all and the same rules don’t apply? Those defending what is objectively unfair by most measures are obviously currently benefiting. The point is through taxes they are in many cases taking from those who have much less and who could also benefit themselves if not crippled by tax.

You’re using a meritocracy argument. Many renters work exceptionally hard too, they just don’t have a hand up or head start. Is it fair renters pay extra tax to pay for those who own and have much more meaning they are held back? Why should homeowners keep equity in full when house is sold, yet renters keep before taper just £6k and must pay tax to cover the £s to those much wealthier? Renters must use up their savings but homeowners get to keep all and the same rules don’t apply? Those defending what is objectively unfair by most measures are obviously currently benefiting. The point is through taxes they are in many cases taking from those who have much less and who could also benefit themselves if not crippled by tax.

How is it fair to require those who own their own home to sell it instead of claiming benefits ? I fully agree with including second homes in the capital calculation, but you can’t have a two tier system which punishes those who try to better themselves by removing the welfare safety net because they happen to own their home they’re living in.

Extra taxes on homes worth over £2m (for now), extra Council Tax on empty or 2nd homes (for now), higher stamp duty, LBBT in Scotland, 2nd homes Capital Gains Tax increases… it’s incremental and will be extended. Whether that takes 5, 10, 20 years days rider being heavier than the horse and UK not ever returning to pre-2008 growth main problem.

Think tanks already calling for means testing of pensions…

In what way are we seeing the creep of further means testing re benefits and pensions?

I think pensions are effectively being means tested by taxation - thresholds aren’t being raised so those living solely on the state pension are eventually going to be dragged into tax brackets. And there has been some change to what were previously universal contribution based benefits such as ESA. These will effectively be means tested by time limiting - at the point of cut off the claimant would have no choice but to claim means tested benefits, and not all would qualify.

Most homeowners are going to be on universal Credit temporarily because of a crisis it’s not gonna be an ongoing situation

The problem with forcing people to sell their houses before they qualify for state benefits is firstly where will they live then?
And secondly, who’s going to buy them?
The only time a homeowner would qualify for universal credit is if they weren’t working very much at all less than minimum wage which would be unlikely to happen to many people
Would be in an absolute crisis scenario such as Covid or some sort of major world event like war. In which case is nobody including the government who’s gonna be queueing up to buy those properties?
So then what are people expected to eat, bricks and mortar they won’t be able to sell and they won’t be able to get benefits either.
What happens to their nice middle class children? Do they hand them over to the local paedophile ring? Sorry, I meant the church.

How is it fair to require those who own their own home to sell it instead of claiming benefits ? I fully agree with including second homes in the capital calculation, but you can’t have a two tier system which punishes those who try to better themselves by removing the welfare safety net because they happen to own their home they’re living in.

Yet it is inevitable means testing further will come in eventually as the rider is heavier than the horse with the welfare state as we know it already having its days numbered including pensions for all.

I did answer the what other assets Q. If someone has an heirloom ring and don’t sell it then it’s not currently counted. If they sell it for £10k and bank the £s then UC will want to know. Housing when sold should be no different.

Those who are not convinced are those who get to eat their cake and eat it too. House equity 100% + claiming means tested benefits they wouldn’t be entitled to if homes owned outright and their value was treated the same (not more, not less) than savings.

You haven’t answered my Q:

How is it fair that a working family, living month to month, renting, meagre savings must pay tax to fund means tested benefits for a family that own an asset over a certain amount and worth £0.5million+?

How is it fair most other assets when sold, and the money is banked count as savings but not housing?

What about those who downsize? Get to live off the taxpayer, with unlimited equity then opt to relinquish the claim to use the money they always were sitting on in the first place? Renters don’t have that luxury. Use up all or most of your savings (£6k/£16k) before you can claim?

Education is already a loan, again due to affordability for most, medicine also carries charges such as prescription and the sell off of NHS suggests unfortunately increased privatisation.

In what way are we seeing the creep of further means testing re benefits and pensions?

I disagree. We are already seeing the creep of further means testing and government circling on property wealth. Just in other ways at present. The only plus for renters is they mostly have nothing that can be taken. With less taxpayers due to 4th Industrial Revolution/including AI leading to un or under employment, more needs done with less. Days of home owners having their cake and eating it too with means tested benefits is not sustainable and contributions already required for care home fees due to same principle. Its not getting rid of the welfare state, it’s targeting it at those who genuinely have no or few other means and not to those sitting on hundreds and thousands of pounds. Each according to their means doesn’t work, if those with significant means have those means as at present fully disregarded. It’s a question of when/how not if changes to eligibility will happen.

I disagree. We are already seeing the creep of further means testing and government circling on property wealth. Just in other ways at present. The only plus for renters is they mostly have nothing that can be taken. With less taxpayers due to 4th Industrial Revolution/including AI leading to un or under employment, more needs done with less. Days of home owners having their cake and eating it too with means tested benefits is not sustainable and contributions already required for care home fees due to same principle. Its not getting rid of the welfare state, it’s targeting it at those who genuinely have no or few other means and not to those sitting on hundreds and thousands of pounds. Each according to their means doesn’t work, if those with significant means have those means as at present fully disregarded. It’s a question of when/how not if changes to eligibility will happen.

Unfortunately what you have to say is instantly negated by your first sentence. While managing the pensions and benefits aspect of the welfare state will undoubtedly be a challenge in the face of an ageing population, there's no realistic prospect of it being dismantled or even hugely retrenched. Probably the opposite in fact, as we need to find new ways of sustaining ourselves with the advent of AI and the loss of jobs it will bring. Also, as I so patiently point out in these threads, usually to no avail, looking at the proportion of GDP spent on benefits and pensions over the past decades will show that it's relatively stable (bar a few blood, for example during COVID). So all the breathless rhetoric in the world doesn't equate to a need to get rid of either our welfare state or its basic founding principles.