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

All you need to know about me is that i have worked and contributed to this country for 50 years and me going to work at 9.00 in the morning and seeing her sat in the sun and then finishing my last job at 8.30 at night and she was still sat there especially when she'd already confirmed she wasn't ill is slightly galling. If that makes me judgemental so be it.
One of my children doesn't work and lives on benefits so I only judge the ones that I know for a fact are taking the piss.

Have you not considered that people's circumstances change? That a person may have been able to afford to accrue some savings over many years of hard work and frugality, but then their health fails and they can no longer work? It's actually not an uncommon circumstance for people particularly in low paid manual jobs, where they reach an age and stage where their body is no longer capable of work, but they're too young to qualify for pension. They've paid decades into the system and when they can't any more, you'd begrudge them the last £6k of their life's savings?

People like that - giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you're not making it up - need support and reassurance. They don't need unpleasant people discussing them, uninvited, on forums. They don't need to be used as an example in somebody else's nasty, self-righteous moral crusade. That you've done so speaks volumes about who you are.

Yep, there was a mortgage interest payment scheme via what is now the DWP. None repayable and paid interest up to a cut off point - can’t remember what it was. The Tories stopped it.

So it’s fine to support feckless women giving birth to avoid work but perfectly fine to berate disabled people who can’t work because of their condition ? It’s fine to discuss disabled people in a nasty disrespectful and stereotypical way ? Is that your point ?

Again you’re wrong. I don’t know why you consider yourself to be such a self proclaimed expert on such things.
Because you keep making one mistake after another and discounting people’s actual lived experience

Or exercise a great deal of caution around your comments because they just don’t add up to other people’s real life experience
Anybody that comes on here claiming to be within a certain profession is taken with a large pinch of salt by the way it’s nothing personal

Used to?

If they have been working, they can claim contributions based ESA (I think it might be called something different now). My dad left work in his late 50s due to his health and claimed it until he reached pension age. It is not means tested so other household income and savings is not taken into account anyway.

Well you’ll just have to take my word for it won’t you ? The same as any other poster who takes part from a professional viewpoint.

Most of them don't work.
Off the top of my head, I think about 38% of those claiming UC work, the majority not full-time.
That leaves 62% that do not work.

Socially there's a huge cost to making families precarious. The state picks up the tab if people can't, for example, buy a car to get to work. Or can't afford to relocate for a job. Or can't afford a deposit on a rental.

Wanting to be excessively tight with benefits is a peculiar form of self-sabotage - it harms the taxpayer to be too restrictive, but still people want it. Just don't understand how the world really works presumably, live in a childish imaginary world where nothing costs money.

Don't forget those who claim UC are also taxpayers - most of them work, and all of them pay VAT.

So you say

Nope. Worked for DWP in benefits, then benefits advisor and twenty years as a disability outreach worker. Saw it all and dealt with it all.

Again you’re wrong. I don’t know why you consider yourself to be such a self proclaimed expert on such things.
Because you keep making one mistake after another and discounting people’s actual lived experience

If they have been working, they can claim contributions based ESA (I think it might be called something different now). My dad left work in his late 50s due to his health and claimed it until he reached pension age. It is not means tested so other household income and savings is not taken into account anyway.

Have you not considered that people's circumstances change? That a person may have been able to afford to accrue some savings over many years of hard work and frugality, but then their health fails and they can no longer work? It's actually not an uncommon circumstance for people particularly in low paid manual jobs, where they reach an age and stage where their body is no longer capable of work, but they're too young to qualify for pension. They've paid decades into the system and when they can't any more, you'd begrudge them the last £6k of their life's savings?

Have you not considered that people's circumstances change? That a person may have been able to afford to accrue some savings over many years of hard work and frugality, but then their health fails and they can no longer work? It's actually not an uncommon circumstance for people particularly in low paid manual jobs, where they reach an age and stage where their body is no longer capable of work, but they're too young to qualify for pension. They've paid decades into the system and when they can't any more, you'd begrudge them the last £6k of their life's savings?

Nope. Doesn’t count. If a relative lives in it UC would assume a market rate rent being paid and would count that as part of the assessment.

Not if a relative lives in it, and I’ve seen people get around it this way.

If you can afford to save that much you shouldn't need a fortune in benefits.

Yeah... so not such a good business plan if you cant actually pay your staff.
Also... no offense- but thats bollox when we're taking about large multi-national corporations not paying a decent wage.They're creaming the profit whilst the taxpayer subsidises the wages bill.

People like that - giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you're not making it up - need support and reassurance. They don't need unpleasant people discussing them, uninvited, on forums. They don't need to be used as an example in somebody else's nasty, self-righteous moral crusade. That you've done so speaks volumes about who you are.

The levels of allowed capital are set by regulations. Above the £16,000 upper limit there is no entitlement . Below that amount and above £6,000 capital held is treated as generating an income which reduces as your capital diminishes to below £6,000. Capital below that amount is disregarded. Years and years ago (almost ancient history) for means-tested benefit the upper limit was, if memory serves me well, £8000 with a lower limit of £3,000. It is what it is and is set in the law.

The social model of disability purports that barriers created by society such as lack of access and adjustments and discrimination can prevent disabled people participating in society to the extent of their ability.
Quite how you manage to interpret this to support an argument that disabled people are being supported not to work on their say so because society prioritises validating them, I don't know.
The social model of disability is relevent to this discussion only on that it explains additional challenges disabled people face in finding and retaining work. It doesn't negate the very real physical barriers.
And yes, incontinence is one condition (and not that rare, up to 15% of the population suffers from it, and its under reported due to embarrassment) but there are many others that mean people couldn't function to the required standards in a paid job.