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

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.

I don't think you're going to persuade anyone!
What you're suggesting would change the nature of the welfare state in a way that would be dangerous for all. If benefits became a loan, subject to chargeback, why not education or medical treatment? Why just houses and not other assets - you haven't explained that. Are we starting to see housing as a commodity rather than a necessity and if so, in what other circumstances could you be expected to ultimately sell up and pay back? Would we see a two tier system based on property owners and everyone else? Are we beginning to see the welfare state not as collective but as funded by individual subsidy and, if so, does that mean we start to move away from universal.if conditional eligibility and towards "deservingness"?
Your solution to what you see as unfairness is too simple, it's unworkable when you start to dig beneath the surface.

Or to put it another way, should savings over £6k only be counted if they aren’t realised by selling said asset!?

It’s a daft argument. No one can justify whether it’s the current rules or not someone having and keeping no matter what, hundreds of thousands in capital assets and still claiming means tested benefits without recompense to tax payers ever when that asset is realised.

Not talking about those with modest assets but it’s a cake and eat it too anomaly especially when many families are struggling and have much less yet subsidise through taxes those with much more.

That is how wealth tax on housing works . Doesn’t matter on how much mortgage you have (you could live in a £2 million house but have a £1.9 million mortgage) or your age or how long you have lived there, you are just charged 2% on the value of the property every year. It’s very unfair as the previous PP has said but people have advocated that this is how you fund the welfare system.

I don't know. I think the people sitting on millions + and living off the interest should be taxed more.
But someone living in a house they bought for not much back in then day, and it is worth more now... how will you bill them if they have not sold the house?

I don’t see how. She lives in a house. The value increase as she says ‘is nothing to do with her’. My grandmother bought a house for a relative pittance (but a huge amount to her at the time!) but it’s now worth about £1.5million. Why should she have to pay a wealth tax when the house is the same house she bought 50 years ago? Nothing has changed for her. She’s in the same position as the PP.

Nobody answered this before. If you give over your house, should you also give over your car? Your engagement ring? Your nice winter coat? What about if you have a pedigree pet? Bye bye doggie?

I have seen posts on here about wealth taxes. I agree with them, when applied to the ultra wealthy.

You are making the argument against wealth taxes which some people on here have argued should be used to fund benefits. Bit ironic really. That’s not a dig btw as I actually agree with you!

No silly
Give your house to the DWP so they can then give you more money to rent it from them

My home is owned outright. When it was paid off, it was worth £140k or so. Now, for nothing to do with me at all... just the way of the market and how things go up in value, it is worth about £230k Disclaimer - these figures may or may not be accurate
I am on UC. Do you think I should be forced to sell the home I live in (which is a very modest property... it is not a fucking mansion)?
I live in it right now. Therefore it is not classed as an asset.

Again, the DWP do not give a fuck about the value of the house you live in. They only care if you own other houses. So stop making up your own rules.

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.

Imagine the email... "I don't own my house, so I don't think benefit claimants should own a home too".

Of course and that's why I said savings of £6000 is only taken from UC at a minimum amount.

This!
And people forget that UC covers a lot of legacy benefits, several of which were out of work ones. So people going on about only 38% of people on UC work, are not really making any sort of valid point. In fact, I am not really sure what point they are making.

I had a read of this fine piece of investigative journalism

1.1m up on UC who don't have to look for work. This includes, people with no work allowance ie disabled. Pensioners. Those in full time education. And parents with children under 1.

Approx 440,000 were moved over from ESA

240,000 new pensioners

And 740,000 on a type of new pension credit started in 2025

Thats pretty much gets me to 1.2m

I didnt really spend long looking for information. Probably more than the author of this fine bit of media.

BTW @Chocaholick what's your disability? Show me yours and i'll show you mine?

Oh shit, I can't have one. I'm typing on the Internet

I'm not excusing it. I'm pointing out it's the law so is applied to UC. If you want to change it, lobby your MP. Posting on MN won't do it.

Its an odd position to take. Because for a start off, the number of benefits claimants sitting on hundreds of thousands in equity will be quite small, hardly worth the admin costs entailed. And those who are will undoubtedly be claiming benefits as a result of a life interrupted. Because you don't get to own hundreds of thousands in equity unless you've worked and paid a mortgage, and had to stop due to health, disability or care commitments. Seems an odd group for even the most ardent anti 'scrounger' to target.

So you're suggesting that benefits paid to people who own their homes should take the form of a loan secured on their property? Could get a bit rob Peter to pay Paul if they ever need to go into a care home. And what about people who go on to earn money after a stint on benefits? Are they to repay their benefits too?

Someone who is heavily taxed wont be on UC.

Again, a house only becomes capital if it is sold. The DWP don't care about the value of the house you live in. It is not even part of applying for UC.

You can get mad about that all you want, but getting mad at homeowners on UC is bizarre when they are not doing anything wrong.

£6k wont last most households that long, especially if they have kids. It would be delaying claiming UC by a few months at most. If it is due to losing a job, hopefully they wont be claiming for long anyway.
Someone going on UC because they have been assessed as not fit for work will go through their savings, then never be able to get them back.

What if it is never sold? What if it is passed on to children after the death of the claimant? What if it is needed to fund care?

Thankfully, the DWP are only concerned with the £ you have in all accounts, and the value of property you do not live in.

The only time people have to pay back benefits is if they were overpaid, or they were claiming fraudulently.

Care home fees are different as the person has left the property and gone into care... and wont be going back.

Disagree that is right or fair. Home owners on means tested benefits are deemed some of the most vulnerable according to politicians yet a renter who works and is heavily taxed maybe paying for that hammock in some cases. If someone owns a house worth £500k+ outright why should a renter tax payer be classed as having broader shoulders if they have in contrast little capital? It’s a nonsense and unjustified.

The person saying where do you draw the line misses the point, if you sell most other assets they are classed as savings. Housing equity given state of country needs to be same especially as income is earned, equity is not necessarily so increases inequality.

In which case you use the savings and then apply for UC?

UC only starts to be reduced at that amount. The whole point of the creation of the system was to help those who really needed it to survive, so having a good amount of savings is personal money which can be used to live on.