To think saving on Universal Credit is extremely difficult?

In fairness I do agree that a small amount of savings for emergencies and stuff is OK. I read the OP as if she was expecting to save for a house etc. Perhaps she meant up to 6k.

I was too sick... I was on an NHS funded HCP course. It was Occy Health that signed me off in the end. I was too sick to attend placement, but the GP argument was that sick notes were for paid people.

I have also had to get sick notes for UC when I was not working anyway.

UC isn’t a perfect system which means some claimants will be better off than others. For example, a single parent on UC with a mortgage will have less disposable income than a single parent on UC who is renting.

It would be impossible, and hugely expensive to the state, to administrate a system where it takes each individual’s circumstances into account to such a degree that this doesn’t happen. It is a blanket system where if you have X you get Y.

We are not talking about savings people can accumulate for a house deposit or go on an all inclusive to Disneyworld. But people should be able to save to purchase a new boiler, or replace a carpet for example. For some benefit claimants getting credit for these things is impossible.

There is a weird portion of people who take strange joy in people finding themselves needing gov help having to struggle and live a miserable existence. They want it to happen. I find that incredibly sad. It wont make their tax go down, and it wont result in them being sent a rebate either.
They just seem happy to know that people at the bottom are going to struggle more.

I imagine it would be impossible. It would be difficult enough to live on it , if you had to, without the spiteful and sanctimonious digs from people demonstrated here.

He was correct to refuse this. If you needed proof for uni that you were sick you should have paid privately for a letter. Sick notes are to prove somebody is too sick to attend work.

Lots of people working full time and paying taxes find it hard to save and cover their bills too, I fail to see why their taxes should go into savings for anyone claiming UC.

Really? Why would you feel overjoyed though? That is a strange reaction to have, imo. There is nothing to feel pleasure about, when there are people out there who would really be stumped if their fridge, or oven packed up.

That is a whole different issue that is nothing to do with this thread though.

I have actually been refused a sick note, but that was by a GP who seemed to not realise you could need a sick note and not be employed (he said sick notes are just for working people... I needed it for uni).

But if we rented then we’d be paying off someone else’s mortgage via housing benefit (on the old system) or UC.
Luckily it was all paid off before the system changed.

And that’s why we need to revisit sickness benefits. The proportion of people claiming to be too ill to work is not at all realistic. In a recent survey the majority of GPs asked said they had NEVER refused a sick note. It’s laughable.

Many benefit recipients wont be working again because they are sick/disabled. That is why the amounts of UC they get are higher.

I think that's the point of it. It makes life very difficult, and more expensive, for those in receipt of benefits.

But in a world where 10% of the country’s income goes on servicing debt, we need to ensure benefits recipients get enough money to tide them over with life’s basic needs until they’re working again and not a penny more.

Thank god tax credits have gone if you were using them to pay off a mortgage. Wow!!

Plenty of people are on benefits long term because they have no other choice. Yes, in an ideal world they should be able to save a little for a rainy day.

I’m overjoyed to hear you’re unable to save taxpayers money. As it should be.

I don't work and I do not get anywhere near the same as a single person in a NMW job, let alone a couple.
Maybe look up the actual amounts that people on UC get.

Yes, and the point I am making is that benefits shouldn't be a long-term solution. I have never been entitled to any benefits apart from child benefit. I worked full time self employed and then term time to fit round my children. My husband worked 2 jobs. It has only been in the last 5 years that I have been able to save anything. So again, why should someone who is either not working or working just enough hours to maximise their benefit entitlement be in a better position than a family working the equivalent of 2.5 full time jobs?

Someone on UC does not choose how much they get.

Uc is designed to provide a basic income or top up a low income. It isn't designed to help people save. Many people who don't claim UC aren't able to save.

If you are a job seeker (or LCW) on the basic rate, then it is impossible to live on long term, and no way could you save. Most people end up in debt.

If you have extra element though like for kids, disability, or are topped up... it is possible to save a little depending on your outgoings.
The Gov even have a savings scheme for working people on UC called Help to Save.

I am on UC (LCWRA) and if I did not spend on anything apart from the absolute essentials, then I would some left over to save. But then once you get to a certain amount of savings when on UC, some money gets stopped anyway.