Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Savings limits - time for it to be upped?

236 replies

Goose38 · 14/11/2024 17:42

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.

OP posts:
ForTealRaven · 17/11/2024 10:50

Gwenhwyfar · 17/11/2024 10:39

Again. You have paid in to the system so that you can take out if ever necessary so yes, you should be entitled to the contribution based benefit.

Universal credit has an upper savings limit of 16k with reduced benefits from 6k-16k savings.

It's not contributions based, there are few that are.

UC is the primary as in he most claimed for benefit in the UK and you can claim it out of work, never having worked, you can claim it aged 16.

Why are you banging on about benefits being something everyone paid in for and acting like it's some kind of savings scheme that you pay in for and then withdraw when you need to?

That's not how benefits work.

There are a few contributions based benefits but it's not a system where you put money in then withdraw it when you need to. As what is drawn is is often far in excess of the contributions.

And the most claimed means-benefit in the UK is UC which is not contributions based at all.

Gwenhwyfar · 17/11/2024 10:58

Overthebow · 17/11/2024 10:43

When necessary. It’s not necessary if you have £16k + in the bank.

It's necessary if you have no income coming in.

Gwenhwyfar · 17/11/2024 11:00

"Why are you banging on about benefits being something everyone paid in for and acting like it's some kind of savings scheme that you pay in for and then withdraw when you need to?"

Contribution-based job seekers allowance IS contributions-based. I thought this has been integrated into Universal Credit now, but maybe not.
It's definitely the case that people who were/are on contributions-based JSA had the same savings limit you're talking about whereas it was supposed to be contributions-based rather than income based.

Gwenhwyfar · 17/11/2024 11:01

"it's not a system where you put money in then withdraw it when you need to. As what is drawn is is often far in excess of the contributions."

Very often much less than the contributions too. People who never work are in a minority. Most people have worked at some point.

Curtainqueen · 17/11/2024 11:05

Bit misleading really because you don't actually get to have £16k. Anything over the first £6k is considered income and your benefits reduced.

ForTealRaven · 17/11/2024 11:26

Gwenhwyfar · 17/11/2024 10:58

It's necessary if you have no income coming in.

That's that savings are for.

A rainy day. An unexpected job loss. An expected expense.

if you have no income coming in and 16k plus in savings, hurrah, you have saved for the rainy day, this is it. This is what your savings are for.

Not this bizarre entitled mentality where people think oh no, that's my money, my savings for things I want to spend them on, not actually paying my bills, the government via the taxpayer should do that.

16k is more than enough savings. Most low income working people not claiming benefits couldn't accrue those savings so WTH people think they should be able to accrue more than that while taking from the state is beyond me.

Gwenhwyfar · 17/11/2024 11:32

"A rainy day. An unexpected job loss. An expected expense."

That's also what tax and social security are for.

"WTH people think they should be able to accrue more than that while taking from the state is beyond me."

Of course not WHILE on benefits. I don't see how that would be possible. The savings would be accrued while working and before losing their jobs.

Gwenhwyfar · 17/11/2024 11:33

Curtainqueen · 17/11/2024 11:05

Bit misleading really because you don't actually get to have £16k. Anything over the first £6k is considered income and your benefits reduced.

Yes, but you can have a car worth 6k or expensive jewellery or anything else and that is not a problem.

Fluufer · 17/11/2024 11:34

Gwenhwyfar · 17/11/2024 11:33

Yes, but you can have a car worth 6k or expensive jewellery or anything else and that is not a problem.

Those with cash in the bank could have bought a car or jewelry couldn't they? We all know the deal.

Isometimeswonder · 17/11/2024 11:42

How ridiculous. If you're on benefits how are you saving £16k?
Surely benefits are to support low incomes and people in need?
I get nothing handed to me and feel very resentful if government handouts are used as savings

Gwenhwyfar · 17/11/2024 11:43

Fluufer · 17/11/2024 11:34

Those with cash in the bank could have bought a car or jewelry couldn't they? We all know the deal.

Doing it on purpose would be considered fraud so no, they can't legally do that.

Why should car owners get more benefits than non-car owners?

Gwenhwyfar · 17/11/2024 11:43

Isometimeswonder · 17/11/2024 11:42

How ridiculous. If you're on benefits how are you saving £16k?
Surely benefits are to support low incomes and people in need?
I get nothing handed to me and feel very resentful if government handouts are used as savings

In my case, I was saving while I was working. It's obviously not possible to save on benefits.

Fluufer · 17/11/2024 11:45

Gwenhwyfar · 17/11/2024 11:43

Doing it on purpose would be considered fraud so no, they can't legally do that.

Why should car owners get more benefits than non-car owners?

It's not fraudulent to buy a car, there's nothing stopping them buying a car.

Gwenhwyfar · 17/11/2024 11:52

Fluufer · 17/11/2024 11:45

It's not fraudulent to buy a car, there's nothing stopping them buying a car.

If it's done to be eligible for benefits then yes, it's fraudulent. It's strange that you think that's OK, but having money is not.

Gwenhwyfar · 17/11/2024 11:54

"Reducing your money, savings and investments on purpose
If you knowingly reduce your money, savings and investments, or transfer them elsewhere to get or increase your Universal Credit, this is known as ‘deprivation of capital’.
You have not knowingly reduced your money, savings and investments if it has been used to:

  • pay off or reduce a debt
  • pay for goods and services that were reasonable in your circumstances
If we decide you’ve deliberately reduced your money, savings or investments, your Universal Credit is based on you still having it. This is called ‘notional capital’. Fraud You may be prosecuted or need to pay a penalty if you try to affect your Universal Credit award by:
  • knowingly reducing your money, savings or investments
  • deliberately giving false information about your money, savings or investments"
TryingTheBestICan · 17/11/2024 12:04

The only problem I have with this is that it makes it impossible to save for a house deposit, so unless my wage increases drastically, I will never buy a house. Though I think the housing crisis is the main issue here.

Fluufer · 17/11/2024 12:04

Gwenhwyfar · 17/11/2024 11:52

If it's done to be eligible for benefits then yes, it's fraudulent. It's strange that you think that's OK, but having money is not.

I mean if they do it the day before they start claiming that would be fraud. But they have been to spend over the period of saving. They have had the choice.

Gwenhwyfar · 17/11/2024 12:08

Fluufer · 17/11/2024 12:04

I mean if they do it the day before they start claiming that would be fraud. But they have been to spend over the period of saving. They have had the choice.

They had the choice, but had been told all through their lives that they should be saving and that cars are bad for the environment. Pretty shit then that those with cars can get the benefits and the others cannot.

FelixtheAardvark · 17/11/2024 12:11

I agree but good luck in getting the Treasury to agree.

Fluufer · 17/11/2024 12:11

Gwenhwyfar · 17/11/2024 12:08

They had the choice, but had been told all through their lives that they should be saving and that cars are bad for the environment. Pretty shit then that those with cars can get the benefits and the others cannot.

Yes, saving for when they need it.
And unless you want to start itemizing every claimants house it's nonsense anyway. Why stop at cars? Someone posted about a £4k recently, isnt tjat as much an asset as a car? Where does it end?

Gwenhwyfar · 17/11/2024 12:16

"And unless you want to start itemizing every claimants house it's nonsense anyway."

Well, exactly so it's not fair.

Fluufer · 17/11/2024 12:17

Gwenhwyfar · 17/11/2024 12:16

"And unless you want to start itemizing every claimants house it's nonsense anyway."

Well, exactly so it's not fair.

It's perfectly fair. We all have equal opportunity to save or spend our spare cash.

Gwenhwyfar · 17/11/2024 12:22

Fluufer · 17/11/2024 12:17

It's perfectly fair. We all have equal opportunity to save or spend our spare cash.

So people should waste their money on things just in case they need benefits in the future?

lateatwork · 17/11/2024 13:42

Gwenhwyfar · 17/11/2024 10:39

Again. You have paid in to the system so that you can take out if ever necessary so yes, you should be entitled to the contribution based benefit.

'take out it necessary '... Um yes. If you have more than £16k, it is not necessary for you to take out funds as you have liquid assets that can be used.

Buy redundancy insurance if you want something over and above this.

IVFmumoftwo · 17/11/2024 14:10

My point was that if those on benefits can find a way to save then those not on benefits should be able to as well.

Swipe left for the next trending thread