Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think that universal credit wrongly penalises...

235 replies

User78890 · 05/09/2020 16:03

Posted a while ago about universal credit and savings... I can't get my head around it.

The rules are that above 6k you get deductions to your claim. The more you save, the more that gets deducted. 16k or above means that you cannot claim.

I am (hopefully) going to be training for a profession for a few years which will be a low wage. I'll have to rely on universal credit as my wage wouldn't cover childcare costs on top of everything else. But where does this leave those who want to save for a mortgage?

Surely anyone who saves will be in a constant cycle as you will then need to use your savings to live on, claim again, and repeat.

Before anyone jumps on me, I know benefits are for those who need it, and if you have savings, yes, you are obviously not in the priority of those who need it. But, those who spunk their money or use it wrongly are unaffected. Those who are trying to better their situation and are sensible, however, are in a constant trap. We are both equally entitled to the same financial help, but one is penalised and the other isn't.

So surely you would be best of spending your money, and you will never get a mortgage (unless obviously you was to secure a higher paid job)...

OP posts:
Babyroobs · 05/09/2020 17:00

Another way of looking at it though is that if people can get on the housing ladder, in the long term they less likely to be getting help with ( sometimes extortionate) rent. Most of the UC rent element they claim is going to pay for often extortionate private rent to pay off the mortgage on someone else's buy to let property. In the longer term it would cost the government less to let people save for a mortgage.

ChanceChanceChance · 05/09/2020 17:01

@NotEverythingIsBlackandWhite

OP, if you want to save for a mortgage then you get a job and save money from your income. You can't expect taxpayers to pay enough for you to buy a house. If that was the case, there would be no incentive for people to work.
This sort of thing. This is the classic British response.

The strongest economy in Europe with the highest productivity has clearly lost all their 'incentive to work' as a result of having a decent social security system or support to train Hmm.

I feel like an alien in Britain sometimes, I look at how dysfunctional it is, and listen to regular citizens who are actively harmed by it defend it, and I just don't get it.

Waxonwaxoff0 · 05/09/2020 17:02

@Babyroobs this was me. I was claiming housing benefit before, I'm not now I'm a homeowner.

SBTLove · 05/09/2020 17:02

Why should the tax payer shore up
your lifestyle so you can buy a house?
This is a ridiculous way to think. UC is to help in times of need not to protect your savings!

ivfbeenbusy · 05/09/2020 17:04

Your choice to retrain as an adult having had kids which require expensive childcare / shouldn't be taxpayer that then tops up your money

If you have enough money left over each month to save for a mortgage you don't need universal credits - most hardworking people who are not in receipt of any benefits struggle to afford a deposit - why should you be any different?

Is the father on the scene? If not also not up to the taxpayer to make up your money which had you still been a couple you would not have required

MitziK · 05/09/2020 17:06

@Babyroobs

Another way of looking at it though is that if people can get on the housing ladder, in the long term they less likely to be getting help with ( sometimes extortionate) rent. Most of the UC rent element they claim is going to pay for often extortionate private rent to pay off the mortgage on someone else's buy to let property. In the longer term it would cost the government less to let people save for a mortgage.
If the taxes being paid to do this weren't being levied upon people who earn significantly less than the OP wants, that wouldn't hurt. But as it is, this would mean that people earning £14 grand and have no hope of a mortgage or benefits to top them up would be paying for her to build a deposit up. Which isn't fair or right.
SchrodingersImmigrant · 05/09/2020 17:07

Yabu. People are sometimes forgetting that benefits are a safety net. It's there to help you get through tough times. If you have 16k in savings you don't really need it...

Babyroobs · 05/09/2020 17:07

[quote Waxonwaxoff0]@Babyroobs this was me. I was claiming housing benefit before, I'm not now I'm a homeowner.[/quote]
That's great and I'm guessing your mortgage is probably less than oyur rent was ?

ChanceChanceChance · 05/09/2020 17:07

@Babyroobs

Another way of looking at it though is that if people can get on the housing ladder, in the long term they less likely to be getting help with ( sometimes extortionate) rent. Most of the UC rent element they claim is going to pay for often extortionate private rent to pay off the mortgage on someone else's buy to let property. In the longer term it would cost the government less to let people save for a mortgage.
Oh and yes to this.

HB used to be recycled through local authorities, but now landlords are getting what, going on for £10 Billion a year of money from British taxpayers.

Why does it make sense to stop a benefit claimant saving to buy a house, just to pay for the landlord to buy a house plus some profit????

Madness.

System justification: psychology.iresearchnet.com/social-psychology/group/system-justification/

squirrelsbizaar · 05/09/2020 17:12

Chancechancechance.
Universal credit is there as a safety net for people that are between jobs and to top up a low income - personally think that employers should provide a decent salary that doesn't need topping up, but that is a different matter. Its not a lifestyle choice.
Perhaps there is an argument to base the pay out on what has been paid in, to incentivise people that have never worked, or to make a TEMPORARY income loss more liveable, but to have someone whinging that they can't save for a mortgage on the UC is beyond entitled. There are people that have worked there entire lives that haven't been able to save for a fecking mortgage and will never likely be able to afford one either. Perhaps save the hand wringing for them.
Its great that the op wants to retrain and 'better' herself, no problem with that, but it comes with sacrifices and one of them is temporarily not being able to save for a mortgage.

Original poster
User78890 · 05/09/2020 17:18

@NotEverythingIsBlackandWhite that is my intention? To save my wages to get a mortgage. But even if it was not a lot, I would still need to claim some universal credit to top this up as my wage would never cover rent and childcare alone.

OP posts:
Batshitbeautycosmeticsltd · 05/09/2020 17:18

@Brighterthansunflowers

Why should people working and renting and struggling themselves pay for you to save for a house?

We’re all responsible for our own choices. You are choosing to spend years training for a low paid profession. That means you will likely need to put homeowning on hold til you progress to a higher wage.

This!

So other people pay for you to keep your savings even though they themselves are unable to?

Nope. Fucking sick of paying to keep/get people on the 'housing ladder'.

Waxonwaxoff0 · 05/09/2020 17:24

@Babyroobs yes, less than my rent!

TitianaTitsling · 05/09/2020 17:25

@User78890

I wouldn't be qualified so it is by no means deliberate. If you know of a job I can walk into without experience and having just graduated, which is above 25k, please do let me know!

Even on a good salary, with high rent prices and extortionate childcare fees, it seems unlikely a single wage would cover everything.

So what's the 'qualification' in if it's not leading to a job? If you want to study and get a job at the end of it... Nursing, teaching, social work, ot, physio etc etc all have practical experience as part of the course.
Original poster
User78890 · 05/09/2020 17:25

@squirrelsbizaar I don't see this as being 'entitled'. It is hardly universal credit paying for me to get a property. Even if I was to get £200 universal credit towards childcare fees, it would be MY wage going towards a mortage, not universal credit.

And yes, it is for those on a low income as I would be, hence entitled to claim. As I said in a PP, it is designed so you work out better off working, so there will be a lot of people claiming who are not on the breadline. It is up to them if they choose to spend that extra money, but some people may wish to sacrafice for the long term.

OP posts:
Original poster
User78890 · 05/09/2020 17:26

@ivfbeenbusy at no point did I say I was retraining.

OP posts:
Batshitbeautycosmeticsltd · 05/09/2020 17:27

I don't see this as being 'entitled'.

Of course, you don't.

SchrodingersImmigrant · 05/09/2020 17:28

I think it's quite obvious mortgage is less than rent.
Rent also includes: insurance, fees to estate agents etc (if applicable), upkeep and services, tax, something on a side maybe.
If you count your mortgage, insurance and upkeep and services, you won't be too far off tbh.👀
It's still less, but really not as much as people think. It's just that it's separate.

MinnieMousse · 05/09/2020 17:28

@ChanceChanceChance

Overall the British welfare system is completely fucked. And there's no desire to fix it.

There's a petty streak of wanting everything to be really really hard if you have the audacity to need any help. In this regard Britain is a self-defeating nation. Social security in other nations is much more sane.

It'll not get changed. But it does shock people who get hit by redundancy having paid in for 25 years just how little they get back.

And you always get some tosser saying 'what if you've a million pounds' like it's a killer argument.

Agree.
PremierInn · 05/09/2020 17:29

Up until two years ago it was possible to have large amounts of savings, so no matter what anyone posts about how awful it is, we used to have a system that allowed this. We still do really, as many families are still on tax credits.
It's political. Write to your MP

squirrelsbizaar · 05/09/2020 17:33

Universal credit is there to take your wage up to whatever the government deems is a 'liveable' wage. You may have an argument to say that its not enough to live on ? but you lost me with your sense of entitlement to have enough money to save towards a mortgage.
There are plenty of people that work in full time jobs that are also never able to save towards a mortgage also, I know where my sympathies lie.
I don't agree with the way the current housing situation, but that needs to be addressed by building more social housing and regulating the private sector, not subsidising peoples mortgage deposits with UC.

Original poster
User78890 · 05/09/2020 17:43

@squirrelsbizaar yes I understand that. But that isn't my point. I have had universal credit while working on a low wage full time so I know what you are entitled too, and you will inevitably work out better off when working than solely on benefits. If you choose to live off bread for the month, you will be able to save some money. Everyone has a different definition of 'liveable' and so some will be able to save, some won't.

OP posts:
MrsTerryPratchett · 05/09/2020 17:51

The issue isn't UC. the issue is low wages, high rent and high childcare costs. Deliberately. It's a policy.

NoSleepInTheHeat · 05/09/2020 17:59

Basically, if you able to save money for a house deposit you shouldn’t rely on taxpayers to fund your living costs.
Sounds reasonable to me.

AnneLovesGilbert · 05/09/2020 18:43

Not sure why it makes me a tosser to ask OP if there should be cap on savings. She happens to agree. To lots of people £16k in the bank is as unattainable as a million. But thanks for that.