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

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.

Its to strike a balance between allowing people enough to deal with emergencies and not having so much it generates income. Apparently £6k is the upper limit before the interest would generate enough to be considered extra income and be another thing to have to factor into the calculation.

This - everyone here cheering for tax rises which means businesses are closing, while simultaneously wondering why people aren’t being paid more generous wages. Don’t even get me started on a wealth tax which would solve the problem for 18 months then what - another wealth tax? It’s not self sufficient, it’s just robbing Peter to pay Paul and then back to square 1 a couple of years later.

There is no way of fixing the economy so the current model of benefits can keep going. Frankly we urgently need to stop all but the most disabled (1% at most) of under 25s from claiming, as it’s setting them up for a loss of work ethic, long unemployment gaps and an expectation that other people will always cough up for them.

Life is hard, nobody is special and different in that regard. The majority of people do not enjoy their job and find it exhausting or demoralising in some way. Moving for work, or taking a job you really don’t fancy, has been part of life since forever. There’s a reason countries like Poland are prospering while we are sinking into irrelevance - their work ethic is incredible, nobody feels exempt from society while expecting to be financed.

And I stand by my remark that a person that can post consistently, lucidly, and thoughtfully about fairly complex topics all day, for years and years, is absolutely capable of getting an admin job. This subjective ‘you’re as ill as you say you are’ model of disability has to end. If you can date, have children, look after pets, go on strenuous exercise outings and so on, you’re well enough for work, no ifs or buts.

But most employers can’t afford to pay people a living wage. I know at the businesses I work with they are letting people go and no pay rises. The rates and Ni increase meant they can’t afford to pay people any more money. Because of the minimum wage increase some don’t take on young people anymore to give them experience as can’t afford to. Honestly, most businesses are not there thinking how can I exploit my workers, they are literally just concentrating on not going out of business.

I suppose I live in a childish imaginary world where employers pay an actual wage, and taxpayers ( ie the general public) don't have to subsidise business, but here we are ...

The question re all the “free stuff” us claimants get…

I pay a mortgage with interest rate of 4.36%, no special deals
I pay the going rate for council tax with single person discount
I do get the warm home discount but that is also based on other things
I am on the BT internet discounted tariff
I have taken advantage of one discounted rate to the Tower of London last year
I had to replace the boiler last year, I didn’t qualify for any special scheme
My children are not eligible for FSM but will be in September
I go to an NHS dentist and pay the going rate
I don’t get free prescriptions

Everything else is paid at the normal rate. Any “savings” I have made from the above is not offset by receiving benefits. No one is better off going on benefits just to get the “free stuff”

Politicians worth millions still get benefits.

My guess is it equals 3 month's salary which is what is suggested you save to give yourself some breathing space if you lose your job. (I appreciate not everyone earns £30k a year

Well if you have a certain amount of money why should you be allowed full benefits or where would it end if you had endless amounts, if you have £6k saved that would probably sort most families out for 2 months, with £16k limit before benefits stop that £16k would last nearly a yr

Wealth taxes are very difficult to administer. It means every individual in the country itemising all their assets from houses, jewellery, paintings, etc. every single person has to submit what they won to the state. I find that very uncomfortable myself given the government carte Blanche to know everything I own. If it thinks I am lying will they have the right to enter and check my jewellery box?

Everything is allowed if it’s deemed reasonable
Might not be palatable if the person was 30 but if the person was 50 it would be fine. I know this because I’ve done it.
The decisionmakers have an element of discretion to apply common sense in all sorts of situations not gonna go into my individual ones but I have done many of the things listed against the rules but for logical good reason and therefore it’s been allowed

No, it’s not. But for some reason the pension is untouchable.

If you can't work due to illness, and are under pensionable age, there may be benefits that you are eligible for, e.g. PIP. Over pensionable age, there is Pension Credit. Check with your local Citizens Advice. They have calculators that can identify which benefits may be available to you. Have a look at their web site.

A small percentage wealth tax on assets over a certain amount for the very wealthy would be a better one. Means testing is a race to the bottom and designed to keep the poor in their place.

Moving existing savings into a pension pot to take you under the UC limit would be viewed as deprivation of capital. The DWP can treat it as notional capital, act as if you still have the money and reduce your benefits accordingly. While money held in a personal/company pension is generally disregarded from capital limits, deliberately transferring cash into one to avoid UC limits still falls under the deliberate deprivation rules.

Using savings or an inheritance to pay off debts or make reasonable, essential purchases is generally fine, but hiding it in a pension to keep benefits is not allowed.

It’s been shown that a wealth tax of 2% on assets over £10 million would cover the benefits bill and other public services. The money is there, it’s just not being distributed properly.

https://patrioticmillionaires.uk/latest-news/policy-recommendations-2025#:~:text=1.,%C2%A324%2520billion%2520a%2520year.

Means testing is basically being done as pensions are taxed. Yes you could say anyone paying higher rate tax on their pensions get zero but I doubt that would reduce the bill much.

It is ideological. Keep the poor in their place. You only have to look at the comments on any site to see how well various governments have done at convincing people that the unemployed and low paid are the enemy.

Means test and end the triple lock. That’s literally the solution.

But that doesn’t change the fact that the pov of this poster is that benefit claimants are scroungers and disabled people should be forced to work. That’s based on open contempt for disabled people who don’t work, simply because the poster is disabled and does work. Add to that the fundamental lack of understanding as to why benefits are paid, and it’s easy to see why dangerous misinformation can take hold and spread online. l had to explain to the poster that PIP assesses disability to determine the extra costs incurred because of it. It turns out that despite being disabled they have never applied for PIP despite having significant disability related costs, because they basically had no clue as to why it’s paid.

Actually, it wouldn’t.
You can defer your income to your pension to make sure that you utilise the universal credits available to you while the children are young or under 18 at least
But if you received an inheritance and you put it into your pension that’s completely within the rules

Ok but I'm referring to people like that poster who aren't simply sharing facts and concerns about the government budget.

They insist on portraying all benefit claimants as lazy, scroungers, fraudsters, unemployed etc even when informed otherwise. That is what I'm referring to.

If you suddenly started to pay large sums into a pension pot to get under the limit, it would be considered deprivation of assets.

But do you understand that even if every single claimant was genuine and in desperate need, the government can’t continually increase the budget to pay for it? Once upon a time the welfare budget was about 5% of government spending, it’s now about 25% ish? What happens if it gets to 50%. At what point is it unsustainable?

you could stop pensions for most but I’m not sure any government would touch that. It is already taxed anyway so the government get a lot back for those who have private pensions. I’m not convinced the savings would be worth it.

The poster said the council tax is cheaper, not that she doesn’t pay it at all.