Universal credit and saving for a house deposit

[Musereader]

I am a single parent with one child, i could not cope without tax credits as my rent, council tax and childcare costs are more than my montly wage so i rely on the tc to cover the bills and food.

I do work in national goverment on the lowest rung in a call centre and have been looking through the releases we get and i am horrified to find out that you cannot claim UC if you have more than £16k in savings. Between £16k and £6k in savings does mean a reduction in UC. This is not the case in tc

A house in my area ranges from £150 to 200k so a 10% deposit is £15k minimum.

Basically as soon as i save any amount of money that looks like a reasonable deposit i have to use savings to pay childcare because my UC would reduce.

So aibu to hope that the goverment does do a uturn on UC roll out which may mean that i never have to go on UC and be subject to these silly savings rules

She's saying she could potentially save £100 to £400 a month if she spent £30 a week on food and lived the life that nobody on this thread would ever volunteer for, for years and years, in order to save a measly deposit for a house. And she's getting ripped to shreds for it. Christ.

So if you're on any sort of benefit, and you cut right back, and live a rather unpleasant life, to put some money aside for a rainy day, you shouldn't be allowed and be made to hand back whatever you have spare at the end of the month? Is that it now?

But spending £30 a week on food when it's just 1 person and a young child isn't that unusual is it? I've seen a lot of threads on here where posters are routinely spending that or a little more if there are 2 adults, not in order to save money but because that's all they have left from their salaries after paying all bills etc.

This is a fucking wind up - no one would think spending that money on a hobby was okay. Fuck off OP

I don’t think that this is worth you worrying about just yet. You currently only have £400 in savings. Realistically you can’t save the £400every month. Your washing machine will break down. You will want to do stuff with your dc.

Let’s say you can save £250 month.That is £3k a year so it’ll be 2 years until you hit the £6k. By which point your dc will be 3amd childcare costs will start falling and so you may not need benefits so much anyway.

As someone else pointed out - even once you go over £6k the reduction is small. I’ve just googled it and it is £4.35 per month for each £250you have over £6k.

So even if you had £15,999 in savings you would only lose £174 a month.

So get saving and don’t worry about the next bit just yet.

Jeebus, I'd never thought to see the day when being thrifty and frugal would get you ripped to shreds. Do you have to be a higher rate tax payer before you can start cutting back on your expenditure?

OP, you get saving pet. In the real world it's considered good practice to have your incomings exceeding your outgoings. If you can put a bit of money aside every month that's a very good thing.

Heebie what rubbish. The fact is that having a mortgage instantly makes you better off by reducing your biggest outgoing by half. Anyone one, not just someone who claims UC, is at risk if they lose their job or do you think there's some magic ceiling below which some members of society will never fall? Perhaps it's called the benefit ceiling? Like I said, keep the working poor down

Your post reads like "what makes you think you're good enough..." in fact the tone is sickening as well as patronizing.

I rent and i will continue renting forever unless i win the lottery and can buy a house for cash.
I have more 'security' as a tenant, i don't have to pay for maintenance/repairs, my LL is responsible for the white goods and boiler so any replacements/servicing doesn't cost me.

So you are in social housing? Otherwise LL can put the rent up/ give you notice to leave whenever they fancy. Them being responsible for making a half arsed attempt at mending the elderly washing machine that they deem is sufficient hardly makes up for this.

Buffering - a mortgage doesn't reduce your overheads...! We have just got a mortgage which is £200 more a month than our rent was plus we now need to find money each month for a repair fund which is something we never had to do when renting.

Other people perhaps have smaller mortgages than renting in their areas but not this neck of the woods.

This thread is honestly ridiculous with people throwing around their experience as if it's the norm. And some of the figures are unreal. If OP as a single parent on a low eager can afford to save up to £400 a month by cutting back on hobbies and extravagant purchases as they wrote then that's utterly appalling and shows benefits are a lifestyle choice. My husband and I are both working in reasonably paid jobs and can no way afford to save more than about £50 a month. We only managed to buy through inheritance. Childcare costs will wipe out our chance if saving or extravagant purchases for the next 3 years at least and even then we'll have high afterschool care costs for all our our children

Benefits were created to tide people over short term when they experienced hardship. I'm saddened at how they are now an expectation for many who don't need them for hardship and particularly saddened at how they've become a lifestyle choice for thousands.

Tax credits were not benefits in that sense though, were thet? And people on tax credits now dont see themselves as being 'on benefits' either generally. They are really a subsidy for business.

They are really a subsidy for business.

In one way, yes. They are also a subsidy for the housing market / LL (along with HB) that make rent etc more expensive due to more money in the system. Like it or not Tax credits can be a lifestyle choice as it encourages people to work fewer hours, plus there is no reason to find a better paid job (and take on more stress etc) if your wages will be topped up anyway. I certainly know people who make the most of the system from this pov, if they weren't there then they would have to work more.

agree painting. Essentially they are a subsidy for businesses, they're the winners. The OP is a single parent. They benefit more from the tax credits sysytem because one person will earn a lot less than 2. It's hardly a lifestyle choice to be left as a single parent is it? They have a fucking hard job with little support, no other options for childcare ect. Do they have to be uncomfortably poor their whole lives as well? I'd like to live in a society that supports single parents to keep their heads above the poverty line and have hope of saving to own a home one day. If your mortgage is 200 more than your rent then that was clearly a lifestyle choice and you can afford it. That's an unusual situation to be in. As someone said earlier, it's expensive being poor.

Increasingly I do agree in part. I go a bit daily mail dad about couples claiming. Know a couple with a fairly expensive house, savings enough to be a safety net when they both quit jobs to go on an extended holiday and purchase quite extravagantly when they wish. Now one works 3 days a week and the other doesn't work. Free hours at nursery. Claiming wtc and ctc. Seems wrong and that the state are subsidising them to have a lot of free time when they could be working. Even more annoying that we are actually in a UC area. That said I feel really sorry for single parents, so if they're given a bit of a leg up it sort of just levels the playing field. It's a lot easier to slip into poverty for low paid signle parents.

I’m in the lucky position not to have to rely on any help from the government, but at the same time we are living on the breadline, no luxury’s and defiantly no savings, I willingly pay my taxes to help those less fortunate and hope my contributions help, what I do object to though is now knowing that some people in receipt of this help are in the position to save £400 a month! £400! I could only dream of having that amount of disposable income!

This thread is absurd. Daily mail twunts everywhere. I work full time. I’m a professional. I’m entitled to tax credits and I claim them. Because they are available. No further justification.

That said I feel really sorry for single parents, so if they're given a bit of a leg up it sort of just levels the playing field. It's a lot easier to slip into poverty for low paid signle parents.

I agree, life is bloody tough for single parents. It is true though that even for them TC provide choices between working different numbers of hours. I'm not saying that it is right or wrong, just stating fact. It may well too many single parents over the edge if they had to earn all the money themselves after all people are not robots. Plus with Brexit we will need people to have more children and bring them up well. I'm not trying to sound like the daily mail but all policy will have negatives - and someone will take the piss, its human nature. I actually find it hard to believe that a couple would choose to live on the level of money you get topped up to, but maybe I lead a charmed life.

This thread is absurd. Daily mail twunts everywhere. I work full time. I’m a professional. I’m entitled to tax credits and I claim them. Because they are available. No further justification.

Well absolutely. Why are you needing to defend yourself it's what tax credits are meant to do

Queen
I don’t think anyone is suggesting if you are receiving this form of help you should be sitting with the lights off wondering where the next meal is coming from to justify receiving it, but there is something wrong if there is such a large amount of disposable income surely the figures can’t be correct?

but there is something wrong if there is such a large amount of disposable income surely the figures can’t be correct?

I'm not arguing that at all, the OP is obviously extremely frugal. If people are frugal then they shouldn't need to live hand to mouth. Children of working parents should not be brought up in abject poverty.

The ridiculousness of the OP's situation is that she could spend 50 quid a week on fags, then with emergencies she'd have nothing left. No issue with that, but if she saves it for the future of her DCs/family then her money is cut. You couldn't make it up tbh.

Increasingly
I completely agree, but there is a massive difference between poverty and £400 left over at the end of the month? Don’t get me wrong I’d love to be able to get a little help, we are just over the threshold, we survive but a little help would mean the kids could do some of the after school clubs, it would mean I could buy a new jumper as I haven’t been able to buy myself anything new for several years!
There is something wrong if someone just over the threshold lives month to month surviving but someone under can save such a large amount?

Believe me there is issues if £50 a week being spent on fags but that’s a completely different thread!

Is there another thread about how UC won't get paid in 5 week months?

I think you will need savings for those months, I don't think a mortgage company will take UC as a regular income then will it?

I won’t be defending myself or anyone. Posters ‘particularly saddened’ by tax credits as a lifestyle choice. As if you are.

I agree with OohMavis and I hate this attitude of "why should people have this much when I have this much it's ridiculous". When you have only heard hard numbers.

People live completely different lifestyle choices and circumstances, OP may in theory have £400 of her money left over but in order to do that she would have to budget to the bone and live on the bread line.

If your lifestyle and circumstances do not allow you to have £400 a month to put away for a long term goal then that doesn't mean that the OP has physically any more money, she will only be able to claim what the government has deemed necessary to give her due to the ridiculous wage vs living cost issues in this country, so bloody good for her to save it.

I still stand by the possibility of the OP being a troll with the agenda of trying to take away from the fact that UC is fucking over loads if people, but that attitude is the same one as that which makes people feel anyone entitled to any form of financial support should never have any more money than is absolutely necessary to limp through life. Why expect and even want people to live like that, or be okay with children being raised in those circumstances?

No one wants anyone to limp through life. But benefits are a temporary safety net, not a way of life. And that includes tax credits too.

I work with a lot of people who only work 16-20 hours a week, because they are better off with the various benefits top ups than if they worked ft. How can anyone justify that?

Ditto those people and others who are working ft are not interesting in promotion or pursuing their careers, because it's easier to remain as they are. Using the figures from the OP, she would have to earn what £35-40k to equal what she gets now in salary plus benefits. What's the incentive for anyone to pursue a career, because it's not like you can go from earning £20k to £35k overnight.