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

If you’re not suggesting that owned homes are sold to release capital before you can claim benefits, what are you suggesting, because from what you’ve posted here, that seems to be exactly what you’re saying.

Welfare Rights Act 2012 Ch1 para3 and Universal Credit Regs 2013 Plart 2 para18 and Part 3 para 72 refer to the £16,000 and £6000 amounts and how tariff income is calculated.

If you’re not suggesting that owned homes are sold to release capital before you can claim benefits, what are you suggesting, because from what you’ve posted here, that seems to be exactly what you’re saying.

I have no clue what you’re talking about. I haven’t targeted you in any way, I’ve simply replied to your posts - l certainly haven’t accused you of anything. The discussion was around housing benefits, and the simple premise was that there are no direct DWP schemes to contribute to claimants’ mortgage payments in the same way as housing benefits help with rent. You then turned the whole discussion on its head by pointing out that housing benefits contribute to the mortgages of landlords. That may well be the case, but it’s not the primary intention of housing benefit, and does’t benefit the claimant in any way. HB is paid to the tenant in order to pay their rent. What the landlord does with it after that is irrelevant. The only scheme open to actual benefit claimants to help with mortgage payments is SMI, a loan which is repayable with interest, and which only covers interest on mortgages up to £200,000. Can we stop derailing now ?

Yes, you did give us a brief rundown of your CV. I wouldn't talk about being condescending if I were you, especially not after your peculiar diatribe accusing me of all sorts!

You obviously disagree that landlords are significant beneficiaries of the benefits system and that's your right. I think though, that it takes some cognitive dissonance to ignore 50 years of housing history at the same time as being so in favour of the welfare state that you dedicate your working life to it!

ETA please feel free to point out where I said that "the purpose of housing benefit is to pay the landlords’ mortgage costs". Now that is condescending!

Have never suggested owned outright homes be sold, however it is beyond ridiculous that those with assets which are capital get to have their cake and eat it too?

Why should taxpayers, many with much much less, have to pay when someone is sitting on hundreds of thousands in equity without anything ever coming back? Owned outright homeowners often have less bills too, yes get help if needed but pay some or all of it back eventually when house sold and that liquidity is released.

Beyond ridiculous renters can have just £6k before taper kicks in but owned outright homes owners keep hundreds of thousands in unrealised assets yet are deemed due to being eligible for means tested benefits as being the ‘most vulnerable’. Most renters would love to be that vulnerable!

On what basis do you think you should be allowed to keep all capital (once house is sold it is cash) greatly in excess of what renters are allowed in savings?

Slip of the finger there - it's the Welfare Reform Act 2012.

Welfare Rights Act 2012 Ch1 para3 and Universal Credit Regs 2013 Plart 2 para18 and Part 3 para 72 refer to the £16,000 and £6000 amounts and how tariff income is calculated.

The house you live in is not classed as an asset or capital. it is not cash (therefore capital) until it is sold. Even then, it is disregarded for a period if you are using it to buy another place to live in.
People who own their homes are not claiming the housing element of UC.
Homeowners on UC is not a problem that needs solving.

Not a landlord, never have been. What I have been is a DWP benefit caseworker, a public service benefit adviser and a disability outreach worker dealing with most aspects of disability, including benefit eligibility. I understand you perfectly thanks, no need to be condescending. What was it about my second paragraph that you thought unnecessary, given that your pov seems to be that the purpose of housing benefit is to pay the landlords’ mortgage costs. It’s utter nonsense, the landlord is not the claimant, the tenant is. A contribution to rent in the form of housing benefit is paid to benefit the tenant in allowing them to afford the rent.

My mortgage is 136k on a 380k house and I claim a UC top up… forgive me, for I have sinned 😂

I'm sorry you can't understand my point which, in fairness, was a throwaway and tangential comment. It seems to have disproportionately upset you so sorry about that. Im guessing you're a landlord maybe?

Your second paragraph was unnecessary.

Have never suggested owned outright homes be sold, however it is beyond ridiculous that those with assets which are capital get to have their cake and eat it too?

Why should taxpayers, many with much much less, have to pay when someone is sitting on hundreds of thousands in equity without anything ever coming back? Owned outright homeowners often have less bills too, yes get help if needed but pay some or all of it back eventually when house sold and that liquidity is released.

Beyond ridiculous renters can have just £6k before taper kicks in but owned outright homes owners keep hundreds of thousands in unrealised assets yet are deemed due to being eligible for means tested benefits as being the ‘most vulnerable’. Most renters would love to be that vulnerable!

On what basis do you think you should be allowed to keep all capital (once house is sold it is cash) greatly in excess of what renters are allowed in savings?

And I was talking about housing related benefits that directly benefited the claimant not the landlord.

The house you live in is not classed as an asset or capital. it is not cash (therefore capital) until it is sold. Even then, it is disregarded for a period if you are using it to buy another place to live in.
People who own their homes are not claiming the housing element of UC.
Homeowners on UC is not a problem that needs solving.

If you're struggling for want of £500 per year, I'd be happy to pay extra tax so you could recieve it. The same as i dont begrudge taxes to pay disability benefits or as a lay person consider myself best placed to judge who should recieve them. I believe from each according to their means to each according to their needs.
The people who's job it is to assess needs seem to typically guard the public purse ferociously, so while no doubt a few might fall through the net and claim when they shouldn't, they're nowhere near as much of a problem as those at the other end of the scale, hoarding vast wealth they exploited people to gain.

If you're struggling for want of £500 per year, I'd be happy to pay extra tax so you could recieve it. The same as i dont begrudge taxes to pay disability benefits or as a lay person consider myself best placed to judge who should recieve them. I believe from each according to their means to each according to their needs.
The people who's job it is to assess needs seem to typically guard the public purse ferociously, so while no doubt a few might fall through the net and claim when they shouldn't, they're nowhere near as much of a problem as those at the other end of the scale, hoarding vast wealth they exploited people to gain.

Welfare Rights Act 2012 Ch1 para3 and Universal Credit Regs 2013 Plart 2 para18 and Part 3 para 72 refer to the £16,000 and £6000 amounts and how tariff income is calculated.

The house you live in is not classed as an asset or capital. it is not cash (therefore capital) until it is sold. Even then, it is disregarded for a period if you are using it to buy another place to live in.
People who own their homes are not claiming the housing element of UC.
Homeowners on UC is not a problem that needs solving.

Nope. £6k was set at the threshold in the early 1990’s and it represented a year’s salary at minimum wage - considered a reasonable cushion from emergencies and life events so that claimants didn’t have to rely on the state for every life event. The threshold hasn’t changed since then and the equivalent today would be £26k at minimum wage. So the race to the bottom is evident.

Have never suggested owned outright homes be sold, however it is beyond ridiculous that those with assets which are capital get to have their cake and eat it too?

Why should taxpayers, many with much much less, have to pay when someone is sitting on hundreds of thousands in equity without anything ever coming back? Owned outright homeowners often have less bills too, yes get help if needed but pay some or all of it back eventually when house sold and that liquidity is released.

Beyond ridiculous renters can have just £6k before taper kicks in but owned outright homes owners keep hundreds of thousands in unrealised assets yet are deemed due to being eligible for means tested benefits as being the ‘most vulnerable’. Most renters would love to be that vulnerable!

On what basis do you think you should be allowed to keep all capital (once house is sold it is cash) greatly in excess of what renters are allowed in savings?

Have never suggested owned outright homes be sold, however it is beyond ridiculous that those with assets which are capital get to have their cake and eat it too?

Why should taxpayers, many with much much less, have to pay when someone is sitting on hundreds of thousands in equity without anything ever coming back? Owned outright homeowners often have less bills too, yes get help if needed but pay some or all of it back eventually when house sold and that liquidity is released.

Beyond ridiculous renters can have just £6k before taper kicks in but owned outright homes owners keep hundreds of thousands in unrealised assets yet are deemed due to being eligible for means tested benefits as being the ‘most vulnerable’. Most renters would love to be that vulnerable!

On what basis do you think you should be allowed to keep all capital (once house is sold it is cash) greatly in excess of what renters are allowed in savings?

The whole country is begrudging me a £500 yearly increase and being blamed for all society's ills. So yes I am bitter.

You can't eat bricks.
It makes no sense to make home owners sell the house they live in before they can claim benefits.
Home owners do not claim the housing element off UC, so generally cost the tax payer less anyway.
I do not rent, and because of that, I do not the claim the £620pm LHA that I would get in UC if I rented.
And the shit thing about that is... the cheapest 1 bed place where I live is over £800pm. UC would not cover it anyway.

I was talking, as ever about housing related benefits.