Savings limits - time for it to be upped?

[Goose38]

Just wondering if anyone knows if there’s any plans for the savings limit to be upped .
I think it’s crazy it’s been capped at 16k for so many years, this needs updating.
How is anyone meant to improve their lives with such a low limit . If anyone knows of any government petitions etc would be grateful.

Social security IS redundancy insurance. That's what it is meant for!

If you want different T&C to the ones on offer- buy a different policy.

Same with healthcare, education etc if you want something that's different to what's on offer, fund it yourself

Ahhh you are bitter.

You worked. Saved. Have liquid assets and investments. Lost your job and thought - I'll pop in a claim, and the found out about the cap and are annoyed.

But... There are some assets (which you don't have (eg a car)) which is disregarded.

I get you don't like the rules of the scheme- but, the government pays a subsistence amount...to those that meet certain criteria.

As I said, you want a redundancy policy- you can buy one.

No, I'm not bitter at all. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of all these people saying those with savings shouldn't be helped, but it's OK for those with cars or whatever and those who see the benefits system as a charity rather than something you pay into.
I live in a country with no savings limit so I see how it can be done.

Social security IS a redundancy policy so I'm not being one, thanks.

I wouldn't have a savings limit at all for contributions-based benefits. It's a social insurance system. If you pay in, you should be able to take out. It's also unfair because people with assets of that value, eg cars and jewellery can still claim.

what madness is this?
So you could have £300,000 in the bank, lose your job and be entitled to benefits?
Paying your tax and NI isn't a savings scheme to access when you're out of work, benefits are for those in need, if you have savings live off them.
I'm amazed people have these weird ideas.

Same.
Benefits are there for people who have nothing else. They are not a reward for saving hard before your life went to shit. Some people on this thread are coming across as entitled. They want to keep their savings yet still get help from the state.

Although saying that, contribution based benefits (such as some ESA) is non-means tested so savings are disregarded, but you need to have made enough NI contributions 2 years before, and you can only stay on it for 365 days. ESA is also for people too poorly to work, and not people who have simply lost their job.

Benefits are there for people who have nothing else. They are not a reward for saving hard before your life went to shit. Some people on this thread are coming across as entitled. They want to keep their savings yet still get help from the state.

I agree. I’ve felt angry after reading some of the posts on this thread from people who feel the world owes them something. Scroungers.

See celebrities, politicians, religious figures and royal families. Asset rich people who are constantly on it.

Why is it OK to scrounge if you are already wealthy, but if you are trying to save money to put a roof over your head and no longer ve in insecure accommodation it isn't? I'm not saying people should be forced to sell their homes,but I don't think these rules are equal. I think 16k is about right if it is just savings, but if you are saving for a home it should be protected. Not sure how. These things are difficult to put in place which is why there are blanket rules.

Should people on benefits be buying their own homes though?

After all if you’re saying someone should be able to save their benefits for a house deposit, and then get a mortgage which is then also paid for by the state, then you’re saying that the state should give houses to those on benefits for them to sell and then make a profit from. I don’t think so.

@NotOneOfTheInCrowd the 'state' don't pay towards a mortgage. So if someone on benefits inherits money and uses it to put a deposit down and get a mortgage, they'd loose the rent element from UC meaning they may get no UC rather than £1000 to pay their rent. So the 'state' is actually better off if people on benefits manage to buy their own houses. But as it happens if you inherit money you loose UC until you are back below 16k, so you don't get to get that mortgage and the state pays your £1000 rent for your whole life. (Obviously rent varies and some people do manage to get mortgages on benefits, but my point remains the same).

It isn't ok to scrounge ever. This is why there is such an outcry when public figures are found to be doing it. I agree that all strata of society have morally dubious people in them and scrounging definitely isn't limited to those with limited financial means, but we should be discouraging everyone from doing it rather than turning a blind to some because others do it. Whatever happened to pride l, self respect and personal responsibility?

You can always argue that someone that is more financially secure could save the state money in the long term. Lots of people are trying to save for deposits for houses or for a nest egg that will be a financial cushion should they enter a crisis. They don't appreciate being taxed excessively so their tax money can be used by UC claimants with over £16k in savings to buy a house that the tax payer can't afford themselves. It's really not that hard to understand!