To wonder why the UC savings threshold is £6,000?

[GiddyLurker]

Why is the Universal Credit savings threshold set at £6,000? What’s the reasoning behind that number?

It feels quite specific and I just wondered whether there’s a particular logic or policy decision behind it?

Being disabled is expensive. My autistic child has broken kitchen cupboards and ripped off wall paper. Yes we have applied for DLA to help. Would you like a disabled child?

Do you claim PIP too?

They would be expected to increase their hours to such a point that the earnings deduction would wipe out their entitlement unless they have disabilities or are entitled to carers allowance - even then they would get very little UC. Unless named on a tenancy agreement they would not be entitled to any housing element so it would be single person’s element which is a maximum of £400 ish (just gone up so is a little higher) so any earnings above £730 would wipe it out.

I was thinking on those lines, they need a back up to bury themselves

Then it should be £24k which is around NMW.

I said at the beginning of my post: I am not talking about those living on the breadline.

I have only ever earned a humble wage working for a charity, but I have managed to save. I know not everyone can manage this but most working people could. Not all, most.

I always had saved a £500 contingency/emergency fund which I only touched if something broke like the car or white goods.

It's not fantasy - it's discipline.

Again, I'm not talking about people on the lowest wages living at the edge. I'm talking about the working people who have a bit of cash each week to go to the pub, grab coffee, eat out, get takeaways, go to the cinema etc. Normal things that can be regulated carefully in order to save.

I’m sorry to hear that. I thought some of the cancer charities can help with financial support - or at least point you in the right direction. I hope you can find a solution. This is certainly when you should be getting financial support.

For all saying that people on benefits shouldn't be allowed to have a penny in the bank....

It's a new boiler in in the event your packs in.
It's a cheap second hand car, in the event that your rusts away to nothing.
It's a relocation costs if you have to move across the country to accept a new job.
It's taxi costs if you happen to break your arm and need to visit the hospital regularly.
It's a new fridge if yours packs in.
It's a plumber if your pipes burst.
It's a new phone if yours get dropped down the loo.

Not being allowed a rainy day fund would keep people trapped in poverty, debt and benefits.

This is s good question, when you drop below the limit your benefits increase again, and drop again as you go back over, it's a lot of paperwork.
The savings limit includes everything in your account, not just savings accounts, so if the limit was lowered people would be going over and under the limit constantly, creating even more paperwork and costing the government more money.

Well said. People don't seem to grasp that people on benefits still have the same costs they do.

What is it with the absolute obsession on here with savings and benefits at the moment?
So many similar threads that start of with a seemingly innocent "I wonder..' & quickly turn into benefit bashing comments and derision for anyone who hasn't got at least £50k in the bank.

Not if they’re renting. The landlord would pay for three of the things on that list that needed to be sorted. I can think of many more.

Plus admin errors would be made which would leave people with no money which will mean people going into debt and higher demand on food banks and an increase in crime levels. The one and only time in my life I have ever had to use a food bank was following a benefits error through no fault of my own.

Far from all people on benefits rent.

Not all those things on the list would be covered by a landlord anyway.

But there are a significant amount of people on benefits who aren't renting me included. Just like there are a significant amount of people not on benefits that are renting. Its not the divide you seem to think it is

Yes, I know. That’s why I included the word “if”.

But you could say the exact same for people not on benefits that are renting

Could she not just use her savings to live,.pay her bills. Then when less than the threshold apply for UC and also the stair lift through the council ?

The limit is £16k. But they reduce any award for people with more than £6k in savings.

I know this doesn’t fit the Mumsnet narrative but not everyone on UC has always been on it. People do lose jobs, relationships break down etc.

Of course people who have disposable income can save. I don’t think you realise just how many people do not have disposable income for meals out and the like. I think you believe it’s a really tiny amount of households. It’s not. There are TAs, nurses, carers needing food banks.

Why should people who are sensible and save be penalised? They're getting the same amount as someone who was spending it on drugs/alcohol/new clothes would. Most people on UC are in work, some will have mortgages to pay and really need a decent buffer in their account for any emergencies or unforseen circumstances.

What needs to be asked is why the cost of living is sky rocketing and wages aren't? Why is the wealth gap is getting larger and larger? The wealthiest people are holding the most wealth whilst the lowest paid are getting poorer, leading to the government having to heavily subsidise them and not have the money in th pot to provide good quality services.

This.

The £6000 savings limit has been in place for means-tested benefits since 1988, when, to put things in perspective, the average UK rent for a 2 bedroom property was £30-£40 per week, so it is very low now

If a nurse is using a food bank they need to learn how to manage money better as a starting wage for a nurse is £32k