to think that people with savings don't realise they may not be eligible for ANY Universal Credit

[OriginalRoute]

Universal Credit will be affected by savings over £6000 and if an individual or a couple have savings of £16000 between them they will not be entitled to any Universal Credit. I'm in a full time low paid job and have no pension, but do have savings slightly above £16000 from my inheritance. It wasn't a big safety net for the future especially with current interest rates but I thought it was better than nothing. Now Nothing would actually give me a much better return and I'm going to have to spend it on topping up my income, as I don't think the chance of getting a higher paid job is likely in the foreseeable future.

There is a significant difference between giving back and giving out.

When I said "giving back" I really meant it more of an expression. :)

There are perks in all civilized countries. The CTC is one that is here.

Well was , in some places...

The whole UTC situation is beyond horrible.

You know, at first I was in favour of "change" I'd like to work when my children are school age. In many ways I'd be a fool not to. I'm furious that the Government wants to sanction me if I don't find work during school hrs. There are no jobs round here in that time frame , that I (in a very rural area) could realistically do.

There are no after schools, no breakfast clubs.

Sorry ranting now...

feminine We lived in the US for about 7 yrs, my DH did a job that here would be deemed hardly deserving of MW -and yet we needed no Governmental help. living quite nicely actually.

so what's unemployment benefit like in the US? is it generous to people who need it?

Just had another thought. What happens to those on interest only mortgages who have savings vehicles to pay off the capital sum at the mortgage end? I assume they will need to remortgage if they want to receive UC? Hopefully most people these days are on repayment mortgages.

16 k does seem like a lot, and when I had over 4 k in the bank, I was not able to claim housing benefit, even though on a low wage.
I get that I didn't need the HB, even though 4 k is about 6 months rent, and that HB is for those who really need it, same as tax credits.

I suppose the thing that gets me though, is that this saving rule does shaft renters, whereas owners can use savings pay a chuck of their mortgage (thus increasing their investment).

Clouds statement about people "choosing" to rent, and renting having as many benefits as buying has made me laugh, if hollowly.
Sorry, but these days, renting IS a grim necessity.
It's shit.
You have no security. No tenancy can legally be longer than 6 months. You have to put up with horrible carpets, and creepy landlords, avaricious estate agents who charge you every time you renew your contract, and you pay thousands and thousands a year for the privilege.
That's why, given the actual choice everyone is desperate to get on the "property ladder".
My fantasy is living somewhere and knowing I don't have to move until they carry me out in a box, if I want. Knowing I have a place to live for my son, for ever, if he needs it.
If renting is just another lifestyle choice, and just as good, why don't all those homeowners sell up, go on a cruise, and rent a house instead??
That's right. Because it's shit.

I can't quite articulate this, but I really feel like something strange has happened to the relative value of money. I mean I know it is a classic old-git thing to be all "HOW MUCH? I remember when the bus was 2d!"* - but it is something more than that. We seem - collectively - to be constantly shocked by how little our money gets you. And in denial about it, perhaps because stupid electronic gee-gaws are so cheap. I think it is the necessities that are outrageously expensive, while the medium-priced-luxuries are actually weirdly deceptively cheap, relatively (although you might not have any spare money by the time you have paid for the necessities)

Housing = extortionate
Fuel and energy = extortionate, we have turned off the heating
transport = don't fucking start me
council tax = ouch
childcare = jesus wept
tiny little computer you can put in your pocket and access all the accumulated knowledge of the world (yet it is mainly used for looking at pictures of cats who look like Hitler = actually surprisingly reasonable, considering
Upshot = anyone who has no major responsibilities is constantly posting over exposed duckface selfies to the internet, while anyone who is trying to keep a family establishment afloat sobs and weeps, rolling starving in the gutter

In the light of all the above, £16k is neither here nor there, yet somehow the mind is so keen to go back to 1950s values when benefits are mentioned, people start jowl-flobbling as if you could still build a royal yacht with £16k and have money left over to colonially-oppress a small hot country

*I do actually remember when the bus was 5p to school and you could get 3 mojos for a penny. And pennies are easy to find on the ground, you will always find one if you look hard enough

faster unemployment cheques are grim in the US. Have you seen what happens when it really is impossible to source work there? Tent cities are real.

It is hell being unemployed in the states, we were lucky to never be.

Many, many of our neigbours were.

I think I know where you are going with your question. Its much easier to get work in the US if you are prepared to do it.There is SO much faffing about in the UK. In the US, you can go for an interview on the Friday and start the following Monday. This is if the economy is safe. When we were there things were very, very bad.

The US is geared up for work.

A major difference in the US is cost of living. That simply cannot be discounted because the UK can never model itself on the US paradigm due to this insurmountable difference.

Oh, and private renting. Excepting NYC and San Fran and possibly a couple of others, a vast proportion of rental properties, particularly flats/apartments and many townhouses/terrace, is owned by large corporations v individual BTLers or semi-amateur property portfolio types. It means a lot more stability in renting and a lot less variation - a Trammell-Crowe apartment in Houston will look pretty much the same in Denver and have the same stuff.

Yes, that is true expat re: the houses.

We found the cost of living in the US much higher.

Apart from gas (obviously)

expat don't get your point about cost of living - is it more or less in the US?

curryeater I do agree with your post of 17.07 about the relative value of money.

But - the average salary is something like £22k a year. If you assume that person is paying 4% into a pension, they are left with slightly more than £17k a year, post tax.
We cannot in all conscience have a situation where people are allowed to sit with the equivalent of an average post-tax salary in the bank and still receive state help.

Wages need to rise, but they aren't going to for as long as they are propped up by state support. People don't want promotions because it means working harder and they will lose the equivalent to their pay rise. The whole set up is awful, and Gordon Brown should be prosecuted for messing with people's lives in the way that he did.

If your children have been given money by grandparents etc can you really be made to use this money to live on when it has been given to your children and not you?

TheWrath - it depends how it is held. In an account which only your children can access, then it is theirs. If you are holding it in their names then yes it will be counted, because you could draw it out and use it at any time if you chose to.

I am totally stealing "jowl-flobbling" curryeater.

This governement would LOVE a US model country. However, it has become clear to US citizens that their model only works in the good times. I lived there years ago. I made good money, although my healthcare insurance was $$$.
And there was loads of work, for a young, white, attractive(ahem) girl. Loads. If I had been in a depressed area (that is, the entire US now), disabled, unable to work due to an industrial accident that my insurance company refused to pay up for, unable to pay my rent, or keep my car going (and in a lot of the US there is no workable public transport) I would have had a completely different experience.
Their system is broken, utterly, and if this government has their way, ours will be just as scary very soon.

When are all these changes starting? Just seems a bit unfair if you have saved some money pre children and gone without holidays and then being told to live off it if needed!

It depends on the age and type of account as well. My Dd aged 9 has a savings account in her own name, only she can sign for it, but I couldn't bung 10k in there and call it hers because technically I could be asdking her to draw out money for me.

The best thing to do with any childrens savings or inheritance is have it in a trust fund, not accessible by either of you until that child becomes 18 and then it is paid solely to them in their name.

My post was to wrath. Slow typer.

There is definitley an obsession in the UK with owning homes that there isn't in other countries. I've heard so many of my friends and others referring to renting as 'wasting money'. You have a roof over your head, somewhere warm to sleep at night - how can that be wasting money?

The obsession is apparent on this thread as people are offended that the government won't 'allow' them to save more than £16k if they want tax breaks/benefits/allowances/whatever you want to call it. I do wonder if people walk around with their eyes and ears closed. Yes, let's cut DLA by 20% even though the government themselves estimate fraud at something like 2.5% (I'm aware this is not a correct figure) but let people receive child tax credits with £16k in the bank...?

It's wasting money, because paying a mortgage is often a smaller monthly payment than private rental.

Happy the point of saving is so that you have money to live off if needed, isn't it?

The attitude revealed by some on this thread goes some way to explaining the current situation.

People think renting is a waste of money only because they have seen house prices rise in years gone by so they see a house as a form of investment. Money they will get back. But they won't if they rent. This is only logical if house prices continue to rise. If they stay the same or even drop then it's a different story altogether.

I'm a Guardian reading leftie, but if I had 16K in savings, I wouldn't bother claiming benefits if I found myself too ill to work or unemployed for a bit. I'd use my savings.

The UK "obsession" with owning homes is based on people a tuly understanding where there interests lie.

Tenants don't have the rights that make it desirable to rent long term.

In countries where renting is considered an attractive option, landlords have what LL here would consider to be onerous responsibilities to their tenants.

As long as you can be fucked out of your home with 6 months notice, there are zero rent controls, you have no rights to modify your home, and rent is more expensive than paying a mortgage, people will remain "obsessed" with owning.

Because they are not stupid. And renting in the UK is a very bad deal.

I swear to God, fucking autocorrect!

Sometimes it's its, sometimes it's their and stop turning proper words into bullshit.