Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4

Original poster

AIBU to think I'm never going to be able to save enough for a house.

84 replies

WhoWhatWhereWhen · 22/03/2013 20:49

When Universal credit is introduced anyone with more than £16k won't qualify, I need much more than that for a mortgage deposit, I'm screwed.

OP posts:

ThingummyBob · 23/03/2013 11:37

The theory of welfare is that it is a last resort to provide you a subsistence income to keep you going whilst you get back on your feet

No they are not. Not in work benefits anyway. Which is what, I assume, the OP is claiming.

ThePskettiIncident · 23/03/2013 11:38

I think there's a difference between being on housing benefit, has and income support and having £16k in the bank and having tax credits and having £ 16k. The former would be unfair as the op could work to earn and save.

The latter is a subsidy on the extremely high childcare costs. Yes, it's because there's no fair wage and a crap solution, but childcare often eats up almost an entire wage and should be reasonable for someone to wrk, get tax credits and save.

The problem arises because benefits and credits are merging to form universal credit.

After all, a pensioner who may be working etc can have huge savings and equity and still get state support.

Our system is screwed, but I think if the op is working and saving with tax credits, it isn't fair to expect her to use those savings for childcare costs.

ENormaSnob · 23/03/2013 11:55

So those saying benefits should be low enough so people can't save, what about those that use them for cigarettes and alcohol?

Dh and I work and earn an average amount but don't get benefits and no where near 16k in savings but I don't begrudge anyone else having more. Especially as that person is living with family and working.

Surely it would cost the tax payer a hell of a lot more if she claimed hb and council tax for the next 60 years.

Original poster

WhoWhatWhereWhen · 23/03/2013 14:23

So if i was renting now, I'd still be working and I'd still get Tax Credits, the tax credits would pay the rent, which would be providing profit for a landlord.

Is that fair?

OP posts:

Floggingmolly · 23/03/2013 14:28

Not fair as such, but ultimately the landlord is using his asset to generate income; you imagine you should be given (through benefits) the means to purchase an asset for yourself. Why would that be fair?

Viviennemary · 23/03/2013 14:31

Most people that are short of money and need help from the state couldn't even begin to think of saving anything like £16,000. So I think it's quite a lot of money for a cut of point for benefits. I'm not sure what your situation is though.

ThingummyBob · 23/03/2013 14:38

Exactly Who.

Fwiw I have a mortgage and I save. I also currently receive tax credits (no childcare element).

Should I have sold my house when my income dropped sufficiently that I could claim in work benefits?

Should I stop putting money away for the future too?

TomDudgeon · 23/03/2013 14:39

I can see both sides

A gets set amount and smokes, mn says that's allowed as everyone deserves a treat and a break from the monotony of the crapness of living on benefits
B gets same set amount but puts that same 'treat' amount into saving to 'better' themselves and managed to save a large bulk amount

Yet it seems unfair that B could have a large amount in savings and be able to buy a house (with mortgage) when being given a set amount of benefits when people who don't get benefits are often unable to save in the same way.

Not sure what the alternative is though.

Gingefringe · 23/03/2013 14:41

When I was saving for a house I had two jobs - my full time 'day' job and a waitressing one on Friday evenings and week-ends. Took about five years of living like this but eventually got there. This was before the days of WTC and other 'working' benefit.

TomDudgeon · 23/03/2013 14:41

Also A would carry on claiming housing costs when B will presumably stop once they have a mortgage

Floggingmolly · 23/03/2013 14:49

I'm probably nit picking here... But, "B could have a large amount in savings and be able to buy a house when people who don't get benefits are often unable to save in the same way".
Why are those on benefits able to stretch the money available so far as to buy a house? It doesn't only seem unfair...

expatinscotland · 23/03/2013 14:50

'So if i was renting now, I'd still be working and I'd still get Tax Credits, the tax credits would pay the rent, which would be providing profit for a landlord.

Is that fair?'

Is it fair for taxpayers who can't afford to save to front you a deposit from benefits money? £16K? That's a lot of money. That's a very big cut-off. Yet you moan you won't be able to save even more and still get benefits.

Diddums.

expatinscotland · 23/03/2013 14:53

'Also A would carry on claiming housing costs when B will presumably stop once they have a mortgage'

And? That's a big presumption, people with mortgages can get housing benefit, too.

TomDudgeon · 23/03/2013 15:10

Yes but only for a set amount of time.
Noone would be able get a mortgage without being able to prove they could actually meet payments.

expatinscotland · 23/03/2013 15:12

And if you're on benefits, the bank is going to use that as proof of income that you can afford to pay back the mortgage?

TomDudgeon · 23/03/2013 15:14

That is true. I'm not quite sure how the op is expecting to pay the rest. One thing to save a bit each month out of what you have, another to have enough to make monthly mortgage payments.
Hard enough for people with a decent income to get a mortgage these days

MajaBiene · 23/03/2013 15:24

So should home owners not be entitled to any tax credits then?

propertyNIGHTmareBEFOREXMAS · 23/03/2013 15:27

I think there has been a Tory moving of the goal posts. With the intro of UC those in work and in reciept of CTC will now be classed as 'benefit claimants' as opposed to those receiving a 'credit' on their taxes. Accordingly under UC, those currently claiming CTC will be demonised by the Daily Mail etc as 'benefit scum', every flat screen will be criticised etc. I would not even be surprised if CTC claimants will be made to go to a job centre and sign on each week in order to get their UC under the new system.
It will hit lots of working fAmilies who currently claim partial childcare costs via CTC and who also have long term savings or inherited a small best egg. It is just another Tory way of screwing normal working people over and making the 'poor' turn against the 'poor'. We can argue over our crumbs whilst the Tory classes eat the cake......

mercibucket · 23/03/2013 15:40

We used to be able to save some of our CTC and I never really saw it as a benefit along the same lines as, say, JSA, more of a Child Benefit type allowance so all children would be brought up in a household with a minimum income of X. WTC has always been an employer subsidy of crap wages. The move to UC reclassifies it as a pure benefit, so the unemployed and the working poor are all lumped in together

Anyway, op, just start paying ypur parents more of a housing/food allowance as of right now, get shot of some of the savings that way and keep savings in your name down below 16 000. This can then be returned to you as a gift towards a house purchase in future. Bear in mind that govt agencies can see all your bank payments and your parents without your knowledge or consent, so make payments to a real bank account that your parents use, not one that anyone could say is yours in all but name

TomDudgeon · 23/03/2013 15:50

Merci if her parents have her a bulk 'gift' in the future would that count as income so she would lose benefits that year?

It's not just working poor is it, you can be above national average wage and will be in the benefits claimants category. Basically only the rich wont be.

Floggingmolly · 23/03/2013 15:55

Yes, it would be classed as unearned income.

TomDudgeon · 23/03/2013 16:02

But only for a year? So if op would also have to have enough to cover the loss of benefits that years as well? Makes sense

This country is damned if you do damned if you don't land. The only Not damned are the ones who inherit so much they never need to raise a finger

daisydoodoo · 23/03/2013 16:04

I think the issue here for me is that op is assuming that they could afford mortgage repayments. If you earn little enough to be able to claim working benefits its highly unlikely you earn enough to get a mortgage or afford the repayments on one if you did find a lender who would give you a mortgage.

In a lot if areas its still slightly cheaper to rent than be mortgaged (assuming high mortgage to value ratio). Even the south east where I live that the newspaper claims its cheaper to buy than rent. A typical rent on a 3 bed house is £950 but a mortgage (including essential insurance s) would be around £1200 a month.

mercibucket · 23/03/2013 16:25

I imagine there are plenty of people on CTC who have mortgages. Round here you could get a rental for 450 or buy for 350 per month mortgage payments, so cheaper to buy atm, if you can pay the deposit

Good point about the gift, TomDudgeon

I have been mulling this over, and it is very unfair imo, and is moving a massive chunk of the population into the 'scroungers that should live on the breadline hand to mouth' category. It is also unfair that those who already bought their house can continue to claim as the house does not count as capital, nor would it count for the first 6 months if they sold it and were planning on buying another (I think, from what I just googled). So cash saved towards a house can either count as savings or not.

propertyNIGHTmareBEFOREXMAS · 23/03/2013 16:44

Daisy you are not understanding CTC. You can claim it on 30 to 40k incomes if you have 3 to 4 children. I have friends who own houses on these levels of income.

Flip

1 2 3 4