I don't have an opinion on the limit, but I have a severely disabled child and could claim the severely disabled element if I was to care for him full time. If I did this I would completely throw away saving a deposit to buy my own place and then might need housing benefit/social housing all my life. Imagine saving up a decent amount of a deposit, then frittering it away through being unemployed/made redundant or having to be a carer or ill with cancer for a couple of years. You'd just end up being needing housing benefit until you die, as there was no way you'd get that deposit back.
Then you have people who already own/have wealth in property getting the same. I don't agree with that. It's the same with WFA if you have savings you don't get it, but if you own an expensive 3+ bed property but are cash poor you get it. It treats people with wealth the same as people without it, but I don't think people should sell their homes, just people who rent should have a higher threshold.
I don't think this issue is a clear cut yes or no as people might think, and it's a bit more complicated than what they can get their head around. People are also forgetting that lots of people claiming UC are working couples and not all on national MW either. There is a childcare element to it that people use too. I don't think the threshold should be massively high, but it is at a point where people have to remain reliant on the system for housing and get stuck on UC too.
Ultimately, it is the problems in the country that have led to more benefits payments. work needs to actually pay more, housing needs to be built so we aren't paying tax payers money to private landlords, people need to have a less busy lifestyle so they can be healthier, and childcare needs to be cheaper. Failures in these areas is why we are in this situation in the first place. Changing a savings limit isn't going to change these problems.