Its about time the Govt uprated the Capital Limits for Benefit claimants

[QuestaVecchiaCasa]

www.entitledto.co.uk/help/savings

For as long as I can remember the lower capital limit is £6000.00 and the upper capital limit is £16000.00. It hasn't been uprated in line with inflation for ages. This means if you have more than £16000.00 you aren't entitled to Means tested benefits. If you have more than £6000.00 the savings are deemed to provide a 'tariff income' so you get less benefit.

I think this is very unfair on the growing number of people who have to live in private rented accommodation who can be forced to look for new homes at short notice and whose savings can quickly be used up on house moves.

Having decent savings means that you are less likely to need to turn to loans or high cost credit.

Another thing that seems unfair is that the figures are the same whether you are single or a couple. Surely the figures should reflect the fact a couple need a greater cushion of savings than a single person?

If I was a policy maker I would perhaps have a tiered system with higher capital limits for those over say, 35 or with a family.

If you have 16k of savings you don't need to claim benefits. You have that to use.
Yes I'm saying that people should use savings before benefits.

What about those who have worked, paid NI contributions, saved and then lose their jobs through ill health? They are entitled to claim contribution based benefits regardless of savings. Should they not claim the benefits they are entitled to because.......?

What about the couples earning 100k between them but claiming child benefits? What about the millionaire pensioners still using their bus passes?

There are many different benefits, assessed in many different ways. I’m all in favour of anyone claiming what they are entitled to.

If people are truly in need then yes claim benefits. But I think if you have 16k plus of savings you're not in need

16k is a bloody lot is what I'm getting at. If you have a few grand saved then sure claim but sixteen k plus is a heck of a lot that you could use and support yourself rather than claiming benefits

16k is not a lot when it is your entire life savings.

Actually as it hasn't increased in real terms for years the limit should be raised.

Pension credit is where this is used most. It was recognised that the state pension wasn’t enough to live on as a sole income and thus to prevent poverty a top up was introduced for the poorest pensioners.

The changes to state pension mean that in future years people with a full state pension will have enough to live on and thus slowly pension credit will be phased out.

Thus the basic universal is high enough that means tested top ups are not needed at least in theory

16k is a lot to live on and use and have saved though.

And only on mumsnet could 16k savings, not housing equity, not illiquid assets be referred to as not a lot

I agree 16k is a hell of a lot of money

Mumsnet is for people from all walks of life.

I also agree that 16k isn’t that much in savings.

SESoftly actually i think lots wont get the full state pension due to contracting out (nhs, some banks etc). Plus i think it's now 35yrs not 30yrs etc.
16k isnt much if you pay 700-1k rent etc. Although this is also obviously the case when earning. However with TC i think people on 16k with a dc would probably be given money. Certainly with 2 dc i think you would end up with 24k not sure but maybe you would get housing benefit too.
Yet if you become unemployed you would live off the money in savings.
It does affect decision making. So not putting too much in dc savings accounts in case they struggle to get a job when old enough.
Keeping your money in property rather than cash.

So much policy is in conflict with encouraging saving.

I think it's fair - as PPs have pointed out so much else has been frozen too (eg: wages, interest, benefits) that this is too;

It affects me - I could only get CouncilTax Support (CTS) once the combined savings, current and cash accounts of both ds and I dipped below £6k, which it has been consistently now for at least 18mths.

It would be nice if it was different but I think it's fair.

I’m not sure about the OP’s suggestion, but 16k is a hell of a lot. I’ve been a full time teacher since 1988 and I don’t have anything like that. In fact, I don’t think I have £6k. If I do it’s only just...
I don’t smoke or go out much, never have, and don’t spend much on clothes. I don’t wear make up and don’t have expensive hair treatments. I go on holiday once a year - not every year, actually - and have only had what could be described as expensive holidays (over £3k all in for the party) I think 3 times ever. I’ve been a single parent so on only one income, but it’s not a terrible one. Saving 16k is a major achievement.

Benefits should be for people truly in need. If you have savings you're not truly in need.

Nope, benefits are for what they say they’re for - eg an allowance for unemployed people seeking work, allowance for those too sick to work.

If you have savings live on those before you burden the tax payer.

It does affect decision making. So not putting too much in dc savings accounts in case they struggle to get a job when old enough.

Yes why save your children? Encourage them to be workshy scroungers too

It’s one and a half times the average wage

And naty even with contracting out they will have the equivalent income as the state pension so the point about pc remains

If you have savings live on those before you burden the tax payer.

Last week ‘MN wisom’ was telling me I was a leech, prostitute, parasite and ‘adult child’ for living off my husband. Inevitably, my husband would get sick of me and have an affair due to my ‘non-contribution’.

Mind made up, I put in my claim for ESA. I’m entitled to it after 22 years continuous NI contributions. Yes, I’ve got savings. Yes, DH earns a good salary. I don’t care any more what MN wisdom says. Either way I lose.

At least this way I’ll have a bit more money and my NI contributions will be made.

And yes, I could live off my savings first. They’d last long enough that by the time they’d all gone I wouldn’t have made enough recent NI contributions to claim contributions-based benefits. Then I’d be utterly dependant on the ‘good will’ of my long-suffering DH. MNers hate the thought of women leaving themselves in a financially ‘vulnerable’ position after all......

This discussion is about means tested benefits. Lots of the benefit system, particularly state pension by far the largest part, are not means tested

Good point - so no pension if you have too much savings? That would save taxpayers a fortune! Awesome.

No doubt we’ll get the “they paid info the system” people along in a second... but how many people do you think have £16k in savings without paying considerable tax and NI?

Benefits should be a last resort, if you have savings those should be lived on first. £16k is an enormous amount to have and claim to need benefits Savings should be taken into account for all benefits inc tax credits.

All the time I read on mumsnet that people should buy a house, not scrounge social housing.

So if a couple with children have had one of them working, they're living in a private rented house and by some miracle they've scrimped and saved for a deposit on a house. Then the working person is made redundant. Should they really be made to use all their savings up and remain where they are? Forget the mumsnet dream of being a homeowner because some think it's unfair that they're getting 'free' money?

Seriously you just can't win at being human on MN

Benefits for me is not a stop-gap, short term to cover a job loss, anything like that. I'm disabled and it seems to be for life. When I first got ill I had over 30k savings, from a life of thrift and working a few crap, miserable, but well paying jobs. Think nannying abroad and being able to save because you work 6-7 days a week, always on call, never able to actually spend anything.

After that had gone, after I'd lived on it rather than being a 'leech', I tried to sign on jobseekers as I wasn't ready to give up on being a regular working person. They refused as I can barely walk and can't hold a pen. Going through the disability applications and interviews and just all of it is beyond soul destroying, it's a process I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. I was granted higher rates ESA and PIP, and from having that I was able to get housing benefit. I hate this. I can't reiterate enough that this isn't in any way what I want.

I'm used to living frugally, I struggle to get to shops and to cook and pretty much do anything so my life is very low cost. I rent so I can't put money into a wetroom or changing the flat to accommodate me. I'm up some stairs so I can't get a chair. There is no parking at all around me so I can't get a modified car, as much as I wish I could. So gradually week on week my savings go up slowly. If I ever do hit £16k I lose my benefits, so all payouts come from those savings til I'm back to what- 6k? Can I reaply then? Nothing? Then the govt has the costs of me reapplying for all the benefits except PIP which isn't means tested.

People truly underestimate the costs of moving for someone on benefits too. Literally any point my landlord can decide to sell and I'm buggered. It took me over a year to find this flat, no estate agent lets benefit people even look at flats. I'd have to get full packing service even if I do find a place, which will probably require extra deposit due to benefits. I had to pay double deposit in this flat and provide a guarantor, luckily my parents were willing to do so but I can't rely on that forever.

The logical, money saving option for the govt would be for me to buy a place. My sister pays half the cost of my rent for her mortgage for a larger flat. Then I could have a far better quality of life, with a wetroom and room for a chair and parking. But I'm legally forbidden from saving for a deposit. I will never own a home, forever be stuck in rentals that can fall apart any time and kick me out.

The savings thing seems so cut and dry from the outside but there is so much to it, so much.

This discussion is about means tested benefits. Lots of the benefit system, particularly state pension by far the largest part, are not means tested

I get it, @SEsofty, but I’m probably in the minority. There are far too many on MN who lump all ‘benefits’ into one category and with one set of criteria for entitlement.

If you were disabled and permanently out of work then I feel you shouldn't have to use savings.
But someone out of a job with 16k plus of savings could easulyuse them instead before using benefits.