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?

i do understand that but there’s something still fundamentally wrong with the system if it allows people to save money from the state to put towards a deposit for a home but people who maybe just don’t qualify wouldn’t be able to save money for a deposit as they pay full private rental costs so they are stuck in long term rentals for life. It is this lack of equity in the system which is causing a lot of the present day issues as many people fall into that trap.

Funeral? Moving costs in London e.g upfront deposit?

go privately if nhs waiting list is very long? ( I told story how this allowed my friend to get treated quick and get back to work whereas waiting list would of been years and years long)

or stuff like dental when you work on uc

Yes, it might not be the most efficient way to get it done, but it might be the only way.

unless the OP is prepared to be a little bit devious. Or can find out if there's a way to save for this need that comes within the guidelines. I know there are various things you can save for if you're self employed claiming UC, depends on your business.

& of course any other grants she might be eligible for.

Call out the system then.

that young people today can’t buy a home

you are angry at wrong people

edited cause I didn’t read your message properly. It didn’t allow anybody to save on tax credits. It stopped them having to piss away everything that they’ve worked for up until that point.

it’s meant to be support to get you out of the situation not a holding bay that literally just stops you from dying.
We’ve moved on from that that was 18th century Britain and then we had the poor laws and Gladstone and DIsraeli came in and we had the progress bill
We don’t want to be going backwards
When I say everybody obviously I mean everybody who isn’t on Mum‘s net bitching about people getting £150 a week to live on
.
The big big big problem here is that we’re trying to do too little for too many people.
And if we changed the criteria of universal credits to either everybody gets them and everybody gets a tiny bit of support and that your lot. Don’t care if you’re disabled don’t care if you’ve got 10 children you’re still only getting £150 a week.
Or it has an end date everybody gets six months of proper support that gets them back on their feet but then at the end of the six months you done
The end date would be my preference
70% of your most recent salary for six months
And you can only claim once every 10 years

Someone with such a tiny bit of money left each month is very unlikely to have accumulated enough savings to live off them. My household outgoings are over £4k a month. The savings pot would deplete very quickly before having to claim UC again. It's ridiculous to suggest that someone having as little as £100 leftover shouldn't be receiving benefits at all and then even more ridiculous to suggest they may be able to live off it.

I'm sorry you can't understand my point which, in fairness, was a throwaway and tangential comment. It seems to have disproportionately upset you so sorry about that. Im guessing you're a landlord maybe?

Your second paragraph was unnecessary.

Wait and who pays for these allowances and grants?? And schemes???

governemnt again???

Is there really much difference?!L

So instead of encouraging and teaching people and generations of families to on benefits to save for emergencies and be responsible with money instead of wasting it have gov bail them out

Remember the saying about empty vessels. People like that do seem to make the most noise. In my experience most people are more pragmatic and understanding and less dogmatic.

Are you replying to me as it doesn’t look linked to my post.

An end date. Great. When you end my 'allowance' after 6 months . Would you also end the effects from my stroke that mean I can't work?

also why should it be on your last wages. It should be the same for everyone. Someone who has been on minimum wage hasn't been able to build as much of a buffer as someone in a high wage, why should they be penalised?

Is it though? I always though of benefits as a safety net for those in need to cover the essentials but past that I honestly didn’t realise it was designed in any way to get people out of the circumstance they were in. I don’t mean that cruelly but fundamentally is it the role of the state to help people to improve their position or is it simply to cover the basics? (The basics will vary per circumstance)

It's a good idea to let people in the social welfare system have savings and not to be completely at zero before the State supports them. Welfare is very much calculated at living day to day and literally any unforeseen or out of the ordinary expense can completely knock them off kilter. Then there is a real risk of using expensive credit to meet this need. This often leads to spiralling debts as the repayments are unaffordable so more credit is sort at very expensive rates. This can be catastrophic for families.
This isn't feckless irresponsible life style choices, it is a reality for thousands of people trying to house and bring up children with some basic opportunities in society. It's very expensive being poor to finance anything, so it benefits everyone to permit every family to have some fallback money if they can possibly get into that position, or if they already have some, not to penalise them. And it should be inflation proofed as the cost of everything they might need it for increases every year. Nobody is saying they should be permitted to have 50k plus stashed away and get UC, but permit some financial security if they have managed to save some money.

It's ironic that you talk about the early days of the welfare state and not wanting to go backwards because that's pretty much what you're advocating. Time limited, highly conditional benefits where claiming them is so stigmatising and dehumanising that people would rather do almost anything to avoid it. That's not a system of social security - the admin costs would be so high it would be, in many ways, better not to have anything at all.

I always assumed that the reason you can't have more than £6k in savings was to deliberately keep people poor and therefore forcing them to work in the minimum wage jobs that no-one else wants to do.

But this situation was also ridiculous. There were actually some people who owned two homes but claiming tax credits because they kept their income low. How on earth should that be allowed. I'm glad the system changed.

I cannot believe what i am reading here lmao!!!!!

absolute foolishness!!!!!

Great so punish more sensible people on benefits for doing the smart and responsible thing and saving for emergencies and rainy days??? Paying themselves when they have an emergency!!!

punish people for having an emergency fund!!

encourage people to waste their benefit money instead so when they have a real emergency!!!!

funeral, moving costs and upfront deposit, dental, something breaks

governement will have to pick up tab in the end

or people get themselves in bad debt and so struggle even more and end up on benefits again

And so their kids and grandkids see this (waste money don’t save) and live like this too.

financial literacy is already bad in this country.

or people scared they won’t have money for emergency end up just keeping money at home or buying in gold

people need to be encouraged to save and be financial responsible, pay for their own emergencies

and if you are a hard working person angry you can’t save YOU ARE ANGRY AT THE WRONG PEOPLE

we should be asking why the hell in first world historically wealthy country hard working people can’t save a few grand or get on property ladder

I’m not angry at anyone! I’m make the point that the system can’t continue like this as this thread is evidently pointing out.

Well, no, not really because historically there has never been effective support that allows people to move forward and better themselves. I’ve not really looked into socialism or communism too deeply but that always seems to be the accusation thrown around as soon as there’s any kind of suggestion put into place where the state intervenes beyond literally stopping people from starving in the streets or rioting.

What makes you think that people need to be managed purely on the basis of their income source? Do you think benefits claimants are a separate species? That they don't know how to live "properly" unless instructed by their supposed betters?

We can go back to the 'deserving poor' and 'undeserving poor' and pass moral judgement on welfare 'handouts' as per Victorian Britain. Apparently that made all those not needing help feel really good about themselves and superior, which is a laudable objective, and you could be 'charitable' and a 'good person' whilst visiting underage brothels in your spare time.

We have moved on from this as a society. Our system is not based on moral judgement or shame or 'deserving' anymore, thankfully.

I didn't say that! When did I say having £100 leftover was unreasonable? Maybe you quoted the wrong PP??

£100 leftover is fine... Save that. But when it reaches £6k then keep it under the threshold by spending it!! I'm not denying people help and support. But people can't also have their cake and eat it... UC is designed to support the cost of living... Not just accrue wealth.

Those people were very few and far between because if you think about it they had to have a decent enough income to raise the money to buy the houses in the first place and they would need that income to be of a certain level every time they remortgage so yeah, in theory you could have people that were asset rich but cash poor claiming
But in reality if you were earning 50 grand a year from Property, could you really be bothered to claim tax credits and jump through their hoops probably not
The people that punishes by removing it are the masses. It’s a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Because lots of people not on uc can't afford to save £6k and it's purpose is for basic cost of living support not to bolster savings. HTH.

Everyone in this country needs to be managed and encouraged

EVERYONE.

financial literacy is horrible in this country

im glad Martin Lewis is at least doing something about it, campaigning for this basic stuff to be taught in schools.

bad knowledge about investing keeping people poor.

but the topic and the thread is about benefit claimants

and also let’s be real. Quite a few People on benefits tend to come from underprivileged/badly educated backgrounds