To think UC guidelines regarding savings are unfair

[dancinguser]

Prepared to get flamed for this and apologies if it's been done before but here goes.

So it's looking likely that DP will be made redundant within the next few weeks due to there not being enough work coming in to justify bringing back all of the staff that were working pre-lockdown.

I had a look into universal credit should this happen to see if we're able to get any support until he can find another job and we meet all of the criteria except "you and your partner have £16,000 or less in savings between you." We have been saving for a house deposit for 2 years and have just over £16k between us. Pre-lockdown we were viewing houses and have been waiting for the right one to make an offer on.

Now before the obvious is stated that we wouldn't receive support as we have money that others don't which could pay for the rent, bills etc. I've put an example below to explain why I think it's unfair -

Person A earns £30k per year, their outgoings total £10k leaving them with £20k. They spend a little of the money but put over £16k into savings for a house.

Person B earns £30k per year, their outgoings total £10k leaving them with £20k. They spend this money on luxuries such as a new car, designer clothes, a new sofa, the latest iPhone.

Both Person A & B lose their job. Person B receives UC to help pay their rent and bills, whilst sitting on their new sofa in their designer clothes with a nice car sitting in the driveway. Person A must burn through their own savings before being eligible for support, all whilst having 0 luxuries.

So whilst at face value it makes sense that people with savings pay using them, I find it ridiculous that two people who have had the exact same money coming in wouldn't receive the same support based on whether they are good at saving their money or not. Why are people who choose to save their money being penalised against someone who may have spent their money frivolously? IMO if two people both have had the same income they should be eligible the same support, AIBU?

@Oldsu

PrincessConsuelaVaginaHammock it IS a requirement for the contribution based STATE pension, pension credits which is what someone who hasn't accrued enough NI contribution/credits to get the new basic pension may be able to claim is an income based benefit which tops up their income to just below the state pension amount

It is NOT. You can get contributions paid by means other than work. For example income based JSA means you're considered to be contributing.

Like it or not, there isn't any requirement for a person currently receiving a state pension, full or otherwise, to have worked and paid in all their lives. This is a fact.

@carlottacoffee

that bloody marion

😂😂😂

I can I just imagine my grandma saying that god bless her..that Marion's nearly as bad as that bitch Carol Baskin!

@Oldsu
it IS a requirement for the contribution based STATE pension, pension credits which is what someone who hasn't accrued enough NI contribution/credits to get the new basic pension may be able to claim is an income based benefit which tops up their income to just below the state pension amount
No it’s not a requirement to work to be entitled to the contribution based state pension at all. The contribution required is 35 years of NI credits for the full state no means tested pension. These credits can be obtained partially, or wholly from claiming unemployment benefits.

[quote Brieminewine]@carlottacoffee

that bloody marion

😂😂😂

I can I just imagine my grandma saying that god bless her..that Marion's nearly as bad as that bitch Carol Baskin![/quote]
That’s really made me laugh 😂😂😂

In the past someone suggested that I buy a new car, paying X per month for Y years

I said, that I would rather buy an old banger outright & have no debt. It turns out, that this was a good decision for me.

A couple of years ago, I was made redundant
I claimed contributions based job seekers allowance for a few weeks until I found another job. I was grateful for the payment, because bills still needed paying.

I expect that a lot more people will need to claim during this " virus" time

Some countries do not have a benefit system

Suggest update CV, LinkedIn & contacts. Ensure that you have the reference contacts to give to new employer, P45, P60

With 16K you are better off than a lot of other people

If people are used to earning say £2k a month and their outgoing reflect that, it isn't going to take them long to be below the 6k to be honest. There is only so much you can cut back on to reduce outgoings.

With the greatest respect for your situation, benefits aren't there so you can protect your savings. It's not a system there for when you lose a job and need money to replace wages, to carry on as normal, keeping your savings safe.

Savings, which not everyone has (and this doesn't come from jealousy) doesn't always get spent on what you originally had in mind.

We were saving for a car. We had about £1500 in the savings account, and then our boiler went. Very annoying. But we needed a new boiler. Instead of being (too) annoyed that we had to start over to save for a car again, I was actually grateful we had enough savings to cover the new boiler. Sometimes it goes like that.

Don't think that the person who has no savings is feckless.

I do hope your situation improves though and there's not a need to dive into your savings. But if you need to, right now, that's something to be grateful for that you have them.

I'm a little stunned that people with £16k in the bank think they shouldn't have to use that money to pay their way in the world. Do you not realise the majority of people in this country have ZERO savings, let alone poorer countries? You're among the most privileged people in the world.

AnnaBanana - Yet people on the tax credits system can have over 16k savings and still get tax credits of hundreds of pounds a month if they are on a low income? It needs to be the same rules for all.

Why should the state pay to protect your savings? I have no doubt it’s annoying but you know yourself it’s a silly question.

I do believe savings to purchase a house should be treated differently to other savings. At the end of the day if people own their own property it's going to cost the government less than paying the Uc rent element month after month for years on end . Mortgage payments for many will be a lot less than rent and Uc gives no real help with mortgage.

In my job I see loads of people in their fifties and early sixties being made redundant or leaving jobs through ill health. If they claim UC their rent is paid by UC, hundreds of pounds a month. If they owned their own house then their mortgage would quite likely have been paid off by then and their housing would cost the government nothing. Pensioners who go into retirement years will get their rent paid for potentially 25 years by the government if on a low pension. So thinking longer term it would cost the government less to treat savings for a mortgage deposit differently. Someone could potentially lose that deposit and miss the boat altogether and in their later years cost the government huge amounts more the way private rents just keep massively increasing.

@NotEverythingIsBlackandWhite

"Someone with enough disposable income to be able to save some is fortunate."

"There are some people who are only just able to pay the bare essentials and have nothing left for savings."
I know. They may be unfortunate but that doesn't mean that those who can save are automatically fortunate. Some may be, lots aren't.

There are lots of different circumstances.
Choosing to study on evenings and weekends after work to attain a professional qualification in order to secure a good well-paid job is one set of circumstances which isn't down to being fortunate. That is down to pure hard work, drive, determination and the sacrifice of years of social life to achieve it.

Do you think a doctor is fortunate for being able to save after years of study and sacrifice?

Exactly. Spot on.

No one is ‘unfortunate’ either, if they chose to be a housewife for decades and not work!

@Babyroobs

AnnaBanana - Yet people on the tax credits system can have over 16k savings and still get tax credits of hundreds of pounds a month if they are on a low income? It needs to be the same rules for all.

It soon will be, they're getting rid of tax credits.

@TooOldForThis67 Have you checked with a mortgage advisor? I’m buying my ex out and I’m not a high earner. People told me I wouldn’t get a mortgage as a lone parent but I can. I think it depends on the area and prices really, I know I couldn’t do it in a more expensive area.

"I do believe savings to purchase a house should be treated differently to other savings."

Impossible to actually make the distinction when you administer benefits, though.

Not the same at all, but the government does already subsidise house purchase slightly through the help to buy scheme.

@Babyroobs

I do believe savings to purchase a house should be treated differently to other savings. At the end of the day if people own their own property it's going to cost the government less than paying the Uc rent element month after month for years on end . Mortgage payments for many will be a lot less than rent and Uc gives no real help with mortgage.

Then everyone says that's what their savings is for and there's no point in making benefits dependent on assets. How fair is it for a person in a lower income bracket who will never be able to save for a house to pay for others, through their taxes, to claim benefits and protect theirs? That's not fair, either.

The ones saving with help to buy can prove their savings are for a house. That's probably the only way you can prove it though.

Yanbu op. It's an unfair system. If you could get on the property ladder, you'd be less likely to need benefits in the future. Locking people out of home ownership is not helpful.

There are two reasons for the difference between Tax credit savings and UC.

Firstly Tax credits were implemented wrongly from their initial idea which changed them from a one or two year bridge to a vehicle used by employers to keep their wage bill down

Secondly, and mostly, it’s because the Tories didn’t like people on Tax credits being able to have savings, but they had to roll out UC carefully because the “hard working poor” who got/get Tax credits despite working don’t seem to realise that they are included in the “scroungers” they the destruction of the welfare state is aimed at.

If this pandemic had happened before the introduction of UC disabled and poor people might have had a bit of support when they pointed out the issues with the changes

DisobedientHamster - There are loads of people still on tax credits and as long as they don't have a change of circumstances they will continue to be for some years to come as managed migration is likely to take years. Even when they are migrated to Uc I think their savings will still be protected and will not affect their Uc entitlement. How is it fair that one family on tax credits who have likely claimed benefits for years could have an inheritance over 16k and it not affect their monthly payments at all, yet another family recently claimed Uc due to redundancy who could never have claimed benefits before in their lifetime could inherit over 16k and their UC would stop immediately ? It's a shocking way of treating people differently.

People on the old system have always been protected when there are benefit changes. People who have been on benefits for decades get more than recent claimants.

If you insisted that new claimants should always get the same as old claimants you'd never change the benefit system at all.

Personally I think it's wrong that people can claim tax credits if they have more than £16k in savings so I think UC is fairer from that POV.

I think it's much more unfair that someone on Carer's allowance, who has to be caring for a disabled people for 35h/w, gets a pathetic £67.25/week. An unemployed person seeking work gets more than that, and am employed person on sick leave gets more still.

Babyroobs is right, there should be a scheme where the money saved can only be used for a house deposit. That money would not then be spent on luxuries but in secure housing for life. It should not be counted for UC claims as it would be inaccessible as cash flow. If you consider someone going onto UC at for example 30 years old and getting their rent paid due to low income and then retirement that’s a lot of money. Even at say £200 a month (to average out higher and lower entitlements as kids grow up, wage improves but just enough to reduce rent allowance etc) for 50 years it’s £120000 in today’s money. The government should be forward thinking and looking at saving that. And then you get onto the security that an inheritance can provide for the next generation. As I said I think UC is ideological. The rhetoric about scroungers, why should they have anything, you’re paying for this etc. You didn’t get that with tax credits. They were seen as a bit of help for (mostly) working families and there was no shame attached to them.

TheWordWoman-

I spent years working in a very exclusive private members club in south-west London.

Believe me, the rich even claim the free bus pass and brag about it, laughing in our faces.

As other people have pointed out, you DONT NEED TO HAVE WORKED to get a state pension. Lazy fuckers are not left to starve.