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

But the point they were making is that these schemes are not available to people who you think might be eligible . There wasn’t a scheme I qualified for last year when I had to replace my boiler

Yeah until it happens to you. Or your child. And it can, don’t it it can

My very healthy young athletic relative just got diagnosed with MS.

and then someone dies and you can’t even pay a funeral
or for something disabled person needs in house
or private renting need to move and can’t pay upfront deposit

etc etc

then you wouldn’t be saying that

Im in stable employment but you never know what's around the corner, im seriously considering buying a bar of gold whilst times are good and tying up some savings in there. If i need to cash it in in the future a trusted relative could take the payment from a buyer and siphon out small bits of cash to me each week.

To those saying work hard and don’t have these savings

If you are working hard and don’t have several thousands in savings

YOU ARE BAD WITH MONEY!!!!!!

of course they are exceptions, but most of the time you are.

working hard=being good with money are two different things

I have so many friends and family who complain they have no savings but then they make fun and tease me and my family, our clothes, our home, our lifestyle.

”i could never live like that!”

but then ask me for loans and go funds me

I lived in minimum wage broke asf but always had at least few k

they would never live like that

what are you going to do when there’s a funeral? What are going to do when you need to move somewhere? Moving costs?

I used to loan them but now nope.

so if someone says I work but I don’t have that, SHOW ME YOUR EXPENSES FIRST

im not buying it

That answers your question then, you have to borrow. I know not everyone can easily do that but in your case you had a solution

Doesn’t this prove that the system has got far too complicated and needs reform? Something isn’t working at the moment. A family with a disabled child and struggling is exactly the sort of family that the state should be helping. Of course they should be able to save for special adaptions for their child an honestly I am of the view that the state doesn’t go far enough. I’d divert a much larger size of the pie to this group.

but debates like this come up because clearly there is an issue with benefits and incentivisation to work for those who can. I think benefits should be a safety net and so after 6 months having a baby you should be back at work (like I was). My baby, my responsibility to pay for it. The money should be diverted into heavily subsidised childcare to allow people back to work easily. I can see people who are forced back into work because they can’t claim any UC after having their child would be annoyed that a family with multiple children have got the ability to save when they can’t and potentially put towards a mortgage deposit or a holiday.

the topic is very nuanced according to circumstance .

What a stupid comment

So when there’s a funeral who going to pay for that?

when they have to move and need private rents need huge deposit who going to pay for that? Especially in London?

and more examples

They used to.
I would have in 2000, cant believe i missed that gravy train

money in your current account is counted as “savings btw”

so rent money, money for bills all considered savings

Funeral, debts, boiler, stuff for disabled people?

and when you are private renting especially in London you need huge upfront deposit and moving costs

you are forgetting uc many work and others sick and disabled

also my friend went private. And was able to get quickly treated and back to work. If she didn’t she would have been stuck waiting 3 years waiting list sick.

People think nobody gets their mortgage paid by benefits. I'm pointing out plenty do. In this case the landlord is the indirect claimant and having their asset paid for them while they do very little is incredibly beneficial to them.
I really don't get why this is such a contentious concept.

There wasn't. I had to borrow from my daughter.

Someone on PIP and UC might qualify so it would be worth a look if it ever did happen

True but for some people on UC they are actually doing their best and working full time. What is better for everyone long term? Helping someone to be able to save and get on the property ladder, have housing security, which in turn helps kids to have stability. If you've got a family for example with a disabled kid, one parent working and one a carer. They've likely got a fair bit coming in from UC due to disability premiums etc. the child needs stability, needs to be near a specialist school for example or needs home adaptions that could not be done in a privately rented property. It's in everyone's interest to let that family save for a deposit to buy if they can afford to. It gets them off being reliant on help with rent for the rest of their lives. They are already penalized by only being able to have one parent working.

Yeah this is it - it is helpful for society/the economy/everybody if people have some sort of contingency for if the shit hits the fan. So while the ghouls, gammon and frothers amongst us would relish seeing people being utterly destitute before the government gave them a penny, it it doesn't actually make sense to do it that way, and the fact that some working people may not have £6k saved doesn't alter that. £6k seems about right to me - it's not like you could live on it for long but it's enough to deal with most of life's emergencies.

PIP doesn’t qualify you for any of that, you have to be in receipt of means tested benefits, and even then there are terms and conditions that have to be met. Not everyone qualifies.

Because:

a) it leaves no contingency funds for unavoidable expenses, meaning that the state ends up having to provide crisis funding.

b) a starting point of zero for someone working and claiming UC top ups would mean that every time a claimant got paid they would be over the savings threshold and UC would stop. It’s unworkable. Maybe try coming at this from the pov that if you have worked and become unemployed, you have more than likely paid into the system that is paying your benefits, so are perfectly entitled to claim. Benefit claimants can be tax payers too.

There will be a scheme to help you with your boiler to get it free or very heavily subsidised if you ever needed that.

I was also thinking save up £6k have a patio door put in. Then save up again for wall coming down. Then whatever else you need.

The work around is to pay any savings into a pension

But someone on UC isn’t being given money to help them save they are given money to support themselves. It does sound like it could help some get on the property ladder and in theory is a good scheme. Where’s the incentive to do more for yourself though, if you’re working plus UC and can afford to save who is going to aim to earn more themselves without government help when they get it given. There’s people out there that work and earn to much for UC but not enough to be able to save, the whole system is unfair

I'm on UC and PIP, unable to work at all due to disability.
I can't get credit because I don't work.
How do you suggest I finance a new boiler or car when I need one?

Right.
Thats not beneficial to the claimant

People believe mortgages aren't covered by benefits. I'm saying that they are, if you are a landlord in the private sector whose tenant is claiming housing related benefits. That is my point here - that there are benefit provisions for paying mortgages but only for the rentier class.

The poster clearly doesn’t know what they’re talking about. I’ve worked within the system and UC claimants are routinely reviewed after submitting bank statements. Anything paid in that hasn’t previously been declared is queried and it can be quite stressful for the claimant who, in most cases, hasn’t done anything wrong.

I think it should be 99p…. Why subsidise someone with £6k in the bank?