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.

I think they should widen the exemptions a bit, so that people on benefits renting could have a sum equivalent to 3 or 4 months rent disregarded in case they had to move. Money earmarked for a house purchase can be disregarded, so why should renters be treated less favourably?

Damages for personal injury can be put into a trust so they don't count and a decent PI lawyer would do this.

A lot people don't realise that if they blow all their savings, the DWP can treat them as still having the money, if they believe they've done it to maximise benefit income, so you can be just as stuffed if you spend it as if you don't.

But yes, I think the limits should be raised.

Reading this thread it just confirms that Mumsnet land is very strange and also that the welfare system needs to be reformed.

That anyone thinks £16,000 is not much beggars belief. A lot of people can only dream of having even £1,000 savings.

The phrase "I've paid in so I am entitled" is so annoying.

Access to welfare should be for those with no other means. Currently a lot of people exploit it particularly a lot of employers who pay low wages expecting their staff to rely on welfare to be able to live (barely).

And don't get me started on the care home saga. What is wrong with if after a while someone in a home needs to sell their home to contribute to costs? What good is their house when they are dead? Want leave it to your children? Then get the children to accept responsibility and care for you themselves. Let them earn their inheritance.

What should be done? I don't know but it needs shaking up drastically.

Before anyone says anything I am not a Tory party member. I grew up in a very poor benefits household a few decades ago.

Now I'll just toddle off before the storm of abuse heads my way.

This is also one of the reasons I can't do OU or anything. I don't have a degree, I'd love to, well just do anything with my days. I go from bed to sofa to bed, can go weeks without speaking to anyone. Distance learning I think would help me mentally, something to look forward to and just anything apart from existing day to day. But I hear student loans now count as savings, even if it's just to pay the fees. And the maintenance loan also counts as savings, and not taking it out counts as depriving yourself of capital so would still lose you benefits. I'd lose my ESA which is the only reason I can get HB and CT help, so I'd potentially lose my home and everything just to study part time. And joyfully, studying also proves I could work even if all I'm doing is reading the textbook in bed or taking notes using diction or fingertyping while lying down. So I'd lose benefits anyway.

Life on benefits fucking sucks. And will never get better.

Surely people save for a 'rainy day'
If you have upwards of £6,000 available but no income, it is 'raining'!
Income based benefits are a last resort safety net!

GoldilocksAndTheThreePears: Your information is incorrect! Please speak to you ESA Work Coach! Life can yet start X

Student loan fees go straight to your provider, they don't go into your actual bank account.

Surely people save for a 'rainy day'
If you have upwards of £6,000 available but no income, it is 'raining'!
Income based benefits are a last resort safety net!

This^

Leopardprint- I don't have a work coach or anything, I'm in support group, and honestly a little worried to even ask as it may be held against me. Can study = can work, in their view.

Goldilocks: you can ring your local Job Centre and ask for an appointment with ESA Coach. The Work Coach is remote from the health decision maker and all advice will be private between you and them. Believe me, a work coach would love to get a Support Group customer involved in upskilling!

Most savings accounts pay very poor interest so you would need to have a good income, second job, live rent free, or be gifted the money or be made redundant or inherit or to have saved over a long period of time to save 16k. I don't know how the Government works out the numbers. Rather than everyone complaining about how much and who should be entitled. Why don't we celebrate the fact that there are benefits that provide help. A year ago I and my colleagues were made redundant. I have been fortunate to relocate and find new employment. During this time all my bills were still incoming and my old banger of a car broke the first week of starting my new job. By working, I hope that my contributions help other people back into work and to support those who are not healthy enough to work. Some countries provide no help or benefits

How would the student loan ever be paid back though? Taking a loan out knowing it won't be paid back is wrong.

Surely people save for a 'rainy day'. If you have upwards of £6,000 available but no income, it is raining!

Sums up everything imo.

I dont think thats true about contracting out.
I read all the info and it said that at one point it was guaranteed that people wouldnt have lost out theough it. But that ended before i started work i think and so it would depend on how well

The problem comes that people have "paid in" National Insurance is supposed to cover periods of unemployment, it has not been reformed.

If you require people to pay in, as well as using up their savings, people will say well I'd rather pay for an insurance scheme that will pay out, and do that. Then you end up with only those who are really desperate using state benefits.