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.

"nothing stopping you quitting your job and living off of benefits"
Yes there is... I have too much in savings!!

"The majority of people on benefits are no different you know, just don't have the same privileges that others have"
My lifestyle/income/savings are not a 'privilege'. I have made enormous sacrifices and worked extremely hard to achieve them.
I started out in exactly the same circumstances as all those on benefits thank you very much.

Why are you jealous then? Be thankful you managed to save enough.

It's actually 6k not 16k, 16k is the cut off point it tapers I think personally you should be able to put money in a government protected account that you can't access and save more like for a house deposit or for a car without it effecting your benefits but you wouldn't be able to access it for anything else other than the purpose it was intended for that way people could move up the ladder

It's pretty simple.

You should use what you have first before getting money from the state. Your savings should dwindle when you are unemployed. As should your disposable assets.

If you get an inheritance, proceeds from a divorce or anything else that makes you better off financially, then if course it should impact what the government gives you.

Benefits are supposed to be a temporary safety net for those most in need. I think being down to your last £16k is generous.

So use them up. Put yourself in the position they are in. Money where your mouth is so to speak.
They are a privilege. Many people will never be in that position no matter what choices they make. They may have caring responsibilities which prevent them from working full time, a partner may pass away, they may be physically or mentally disabled.. there are many many things we don't have control over in life, and the fact they don't apply to you is a privilege.

I also think it should be lowered. Benefits should be an emrgency measure, not a lifestyle choice. Savings should be used before the state pays out.

Wish I had £16 k in savings!

Not exactly the same circumstances.

Lives are all different, none of us have exactly the same circumstances as anyone else.

If you don't feel satisfied with your own situation, that's unfortunate for you, but comparing yourself to others won't make you happy.

Are you serious? You think it should be raised to £28k? Why should tax money be used to subsidise people who have £28k in the bank? That’s a huge amount of money and of course people should be expected to live of it before they get benefit money. Benefits are there as a safety net not so people can keep large savings pots.

@Goose38 you can save as much as you want! you just wont be entitled to benefits if you have over 16k and why should you be? if anyone has 16k then they are obviously getting too much in benefits anyway!! How does it improve your live if it is in the bank anyway?????

It's a tricky one.

I think savings should be allowed over £16k if they're going towards a house deposit for example. Ultimately home ownership will cost the taxpayer less in the long run as it will save people claiming the housing element of UC. Some people in London for example are eligible for thousands in UC just to cover their rent.

But then I guess it would be tricky to manage.

I get UC myself and I have a full time job earning £29k. I can afford to save a bit, but not to the tune of £16k personally.

Ultimately, if people can afford to save while getting UC, most will just spend the money instead rather than risk getting penalised for saving. That doesn't help anybody in the long run. They'll get the same amount of money regardless if they spend it or save it so those who oppose people saving it are missing the point a bit.

This is so boring! Landlords and employers have been absolutely crucified by successive governments to the point that many are selling up or hiring less people because they can't break even, let alone make these huge profits you seem to suggest. Open your eyes and look at the latest employment stats and businesses in distress indicators to understand the state of the economy and what we are dealing with.

It is always easy to blame someone else when in reality his forum is filled with threads from people that don't want to work more hours or take a promotion because they will lose UC and be no better off. The fact that they would support themselves and not rely on the government isn't relevant to them. Meanwhile people who are completely self sustaining are making these difficult choices and sacrifices and of course they are resentful of those that are doing less and claiming more. It is human nature! If you were on the other side of the equation you took would almost certainly feel similarly as no-one wants to be taken for a mug.

You're always better off by taking a promotion/earning more on UC. For every £ you earn you lose 55p of UC, so the more you earn the more you keep. I get UC and the more I've earned over the years the better off I've been.

I think it should dramatically lowered.

The obvious solution is that the LISA (which can only be used to buy your first home, or accessed when you're 60) should be treated as the same way as pension savings when it comes to benefits i.e. not included in savings allowance calculations.

Because if you can afford to save enough for a whole new kitchen, you clearly don't need benefits.

You are perfectly entitled to save up for a new kitchen, but if you were able to do so you are demonstrating that you don't need the money being given to you to live which is what benefits are for, they are help from the government when you don't have enough to live on. If you can love on what you have easily enough to save such a large sum of money, you don't need it! Its not supposed to be a nice extra, it's a lifeline for those in need. The more people that have it that don't need it, the harder it is to give to those who need it.

Yep, also you’d be paying more into your pension.

Maybe technically you are, but when any pay rise is only at 45% of the actual value and then you account for the loss of UC and then you account for additional hours of after school care etc then people basically decide it isn't worth it and it's easier to stay on UC. You see it time and and again on MN so you can't tell me it's not happening. They basically see UC as the same as earned money and there is no real distinction between taking off the government and earning the money yourself. That's what I don't like! UC is a safety net but it shouldn't be a choice. If you are capable of earning enough to support yourself the you should really be trying your utmost to do this.

Yes but it also means that there is no point in trying to better your life because should you fall on bad times, the Govt will expect you to spend that first.... someone who has been feckless on the other hand, gets benefits from day one, benefits also reduce from about £6k, they go completely at £16k.

Its actually contributing to further entitlement.

Some other European countries have far better contributory systems, taking into account the previous salary/work record of the claimant.

Well you must get CB then on your wages

To be fair, a lot of the time you'd have to earn a huge amount to get off UC completely. I earn £29k which isn't a great salary but isn't particularly awful, and I still get UC on that wage, I live in a cheapish area as well and do not claim for childcare costs as my DC is old enough not to need paid childcare. I can't even imagine what someone living in the south east paying over £1000 in rent and needing full time childcare would need to earn to get off UC fully.

Yes the better solution is to get a job!!

Thought most people on UC actually had jobs. Hence the issues with low wages needing topping up

It was hyperthetical anyway. I can't afford it but things like that need to be kept in mind.

I do understand this but ultimately UC is paid as it is believed that people would struggle to survive without it. It is therefore still a safety net even when you earn a decent wage like yourself as in theory you still aren't earning enough to sustain yourself. Some people will never be able to reach this threshold no matter what they do but there are lots of people that choose slightly easier jobs/hours etc and top up their earnings with UC. That's what I think is wrong and why the £16k limit should remain. If you are saving more than that then you factually can afford to sustain yourself without UC.