To think a lot of people make poor spending choices and then blame everything else?

Yes. I hate wasting money on electric, heating, keeping a roof over my head and food. I’d much rather make a positive spending choice by having some enjoyment in life but due to inflation that is the going to happen.

Well yes, but at the moment, the spendthrifts just spend it and enjoy it, whereas those more responsible and try to save are penalised. But yes, if ANYONE can afford to save out of benefits, it does tend to suggest that benefits are too high in the first place and need reducing. After all, as benefits are based on a specific set of rules, and some people are saving, then those who aren't, who are getting the same benefits, do appear to be over-spending and don't "need" all the benefits they receive. But that's different to penalising those who can save.

No.

You've completely ignored the context and intent of the post.

Although, in some circumstances, yes. My brother has a well-paid job, but money burns a hole in his pocket, so he is up to his ears in debt. He's burnt his bridges borrowing money and treating people like shit, so yes. It's his fault he's poor.

I'm sure for some it is partly that, but it's easy to make poor choices when you are poor to start with and can't afford life.

No, that isn't what I meant by my post. I was debating the £6k/£16k savings limit with another poster. A small amount of savings is clearly preferable to none. £16k is above the national average for people under 55. Some people can and do save money from benefits and it can go past £16k. I know this factually. It wasn't from £0-£16k but when you're on benefits for years and saving a bit every week it soon adds up.

Why does money from an inheritance or anywhere else could differently? Why shouldn't you use this to support yourself instead of rely on the state in the first instance?

Why should we be encouraging benefit claimants to save more than £16k instead of encouraging them to spend their money supporting themselves?

Yes and no.

I think SOME individuals make very poor decisions. I have families asking for referrals to baby banks in one breath whilst in another they start discussing their manicure or planned holiday, or smoking their vape. That pisses me off because as the healthcare professional I can’t afford a holiday or a manicure! But ultimately I’m just there to make sure their baby gets what they need and if some cheap acrylics make all the difference to your mental health and self-esteem, it’s probably saving services some cash somewhere.

On the other hand, everything is insanely bloody expensive. And we live in a system that desperately seeks to sell us things. In a world where there is climate change, and war, and doom and gloom it’s very easy to seek little dopamine hits from buying things, especially when they are being pushed on us all the time.

Worth being clear on exactly how this works. If you've got above 16k in savings, you'll get no UC and if you've got say £15,900 you'll get a small percent of the full award- it's withdrawn progressively if you have capital between 6k and 16k.

There is general societal benefit in people who rely on state support being able to have some safety net. It starts being withdrawn at 6k, which for the average household is going to be perhaps 3 months of basic expenses max. It's a very, very long time since these capital figures were revised. There might be room for discussion on whether they should be changed, but I'd want to know a lot more about claimant numbers at 15.9kish first.

Several years ago, DH was a mortgage advisor for a national bank. No less than three family members asked his advice about different mortgage options that were available at that time. He told them, very generally, the pros and cons of what was on offer. He was very clear that personally, he would avoid endowment mortgages, especially the ' low cost' optii, like the plague. Guess what they all went for? And then when they all got the red notice telling them how big a shortfall was predicted they all wanted him to advise them how to deal with it.
We've always advised our ds's to avoid unnecessary credit as much as possible - better a slightly older car that is completely yours than one on finance that could be repossessed if your circumstances take a downward turn.
I'm not sure the odd coffee from Costa is the problem for most people.

I’m inclined to agree - there will always be some who are in debt due to life choices but through my work I’ve realised how many get a leg up in life - houses being bought for them, inheritances of hundreds of thousands from distant relatives etc - whilst it might not be enough to retire I think we can all agree we’d all be better off financially without a mortgage!! Whilst a lot is still earned from their career, to reach the higher salaries it often means university. University has yet again become for the rich - my partner and I are not classed as high earners yet we are expected to fund our child who is about to start uni with an extra £6k on top of loans which don’t even cover accommodation! Yes he does also work but studying full time and working is a lot. He gained a contextual offer on the basis that our postcode has less people going to uni due to deprivation factors yet there is no accounting for that when it comes to funding his place!!

But you are saying that someone on UC should not be allowed to save anything at all (if I read your last post correctly).
No one on UC is saving up £16k from zero. That sort of money tends to come from inheritance etc, or they had it before they started their claim.

Surely we should be encouraging people to save anyway, be they on UC or not.

I know, my relative is eligible and uses this. This doesn't trump the savings limits though. It's intended to make sure the benefits claimants have some savings for emergencies but not tens of thousands. I think this is sensible.

You can buy a fridge for less than £6k, let alone less than £16k.

Large amounts of savings when you are not reliant on the state are great. They are a safety net for if something does go wrong so that you can hopefully cope without state assistance. This is beneficial for everyone and give the individual peace of mind.

Large amounts of savings when you're claiming benefits are obviously more controversial. This is the time to use your safety net. If you exhaust it then the state can step in but it isn't fair to hoard your savings on one hand and then ask everyone else for money on the other. The person that is most responsible for funding you is you. This is a fundamental truth for us all.

In my life I see a lot of this (hope the image comes through) and then they reach out at the point of ‘hard life’

There is actually a Gov backed savings scheme for working people on UC. It is called Help To Save.

If someone on benefits can budget well and manage to save a bit, then there is nothing wrong with that. Benefit claimants do not have a say in how much they get and should not have that amount reduced because that have not spent it.
There is more to life essentials than housing, bills and food. If someone on benefits needs a new fridge, then they should be allowed to save up... and thankfully the system allows that. It makes no sense to remove anything they have not spent, or reduce their benefits.

That is a curious stance to take given the topic of this thread. Spending unwisely = bad. Saving on benefits = bad.

Benefits are too high if you can afford to save them. That's the reality. We have a welfare bill that's out of control. If you have £16k you have more than the average amount of savings if you are under 55. This has to be enough otherwise we are suggesting that the majority of people need a government top-up to boost their savings higher than this. It makes no sense. Who is paying for it?

I just think that people who manage to save out of their benefits shouldn't be penalised when those who waste all of their benefits and can't be arsed to save or control their spending, don't get penalised.

I don't know, I think it would differ from person to person. Lots of people really don't have enough money to make ends meet at the moment even if they are really careful while there are others who overspend on things they can't afford. I don't think it's a thing I can make a blanket judgement on.

Sounds familiar.

DH's ex lives in rented and was complaining how skint she was after the landlord put her rent up. She also said she could no longer afford to go halves on DSC's uniform (they live with us 70/30). But she also bought herself a Rolex for her birthday so...

I think the idea that everyone that's on benefits wants or even could save to fund financially gainful businesses is really odd. This will be a very small percentage of people on benefits. Most don't work. Those that do work are more likely to work PT and in low paid occupations. Most small businesses fail. Arguably it isn't a great idea for someone reliant on benefits and with savings that they can't easily rebuild to invest a large amount of savings in setting up a business. They would be better off seeking PAYE employment which is far less risky.

I think the point is that benefits are there as a safety net and meant to cover essentials. If you are saving thousands of pounds then clearly there is some excess in there and it's an argument to reduce benefits rather than increase saving thresholds so savvy benefit claimants can squirrel away tens of thousands of taxpayer's money.

Just to add, to use an analogy when I was younger I would get lunch money from my mum for school. I soon worked out that I could buy a bag of chips and drink and save a pound a day that I could save and buy clothes etc with. My mum found out and went mad. She instantly reduced my lunch money allowance. She didn't praise me for being savvy as she claimed I had ascertained the money under false pretences that I needed it for lunch (an essential) when in fact I wasn't using it for lunch at all. I think this is similar to benefits. It's there to fund the essentials and meet people's basic needs. It isn't some flexible income stream that you can be smart with to improve your personal financial situation at the expense of everyone else.

I know people that go on multiple expensive holidays a year and constantly moan about lack of money. Also buying their lunch each day from M&S etc I haven’t been on a holiday in years so it’s a bit annoying having to listen to that when there are obvious cut backs they could do.

Honestly, people make poor choices about many things in life and blame everyone else. There is a distinct lack of accountability that runs throughout the generations and it's concerning. The same generation then has the audacity to disparage younger generations about their thoughts and behaviours. Where do they think this younger generation picked these things up from?

It also acts as a disincentive though. Look at pensions. Lots of people make the conscious decision not to save into a pension because they know that any private pension they receive will reduce the amount of pension credits. Those living on very low incomes or benefits are basically being held back by the benefits system, where they "could" work more, save more, etc., but can't actually see the benefit if their benefits (short and long term) will be reduced accordingly. Likewise with the savings limit - it may stop them from being able to start their own business if they can't save enough to pay for the upfront costs, marketing, equipment, etc. No easy answer, but as a country, we have to start thinking outside the box re both the tax and benefits systems as they're both holding back economic growth at the moment.

As for people saying we shouldn't be letting people "save" when they're on benefits or UC, isn't that back to poor spending choices when "some" people manage to save on low wages/benefits/uc but others can't - are we saying those who can't are "wasting" some of their money, as presumably their incomes (wages and benefits) are the same as those who are managing to save?

You are allowed up to £16k in savings. Most people on benefits don't work and a large amount of those that do work won't need to buy a van or expensive asset to work.

They will also have access to a warm home and healthy meals without needing over £16k in the bank. The average person in the UK under 55 years of age doesn't have that much in savings but you can't say that they are all on the 'bones of their arse' or unable to provide warm homes for their kids. It's the norm not to have over £16k in savings.

My friend and her husband are like this, but I don't think they're accountable at all... They remortgaged their house to go to Disney World and pay for new carpets then were upset when their mortgage was up for renewal and they had a hike of £300 per month due to the interest rates. It all seemed a bit bonkers to me!

I mean - who remortgages to get new carpets when most major carpet shops offer 0% interest....