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?

This isn’t correct cheesewhizz. If you have an account like this for your child, even if it has your name on as the named adult, it is not classed by UC as your money. If you take money in and out of it to use for your needs then it is. But if you just add to it (not excessive amounts to hide money of course!) and are the legal adult then it is not added to your savings amount. Because all kids accounts need that adult name. So do correct that on your savings figures.

You’re missing the point entirely.

Economies actually rely on people working modestly paid, or averagely paid jobs, because these are the ‘grunts’ enabling the very high earners to earn what they do. They also provide virtually all of the in person services you rely on. If suddenly the NMW went up to a ridiculous level so they were ALL net earners, the inflation would be so awful our economy would collapse.

The country cannot survive or even have high earners without people working regular jobs. It can however survive without benefit claimants. Snottily trying to compare the two is morally repugnant frankly, yet here we are.

Well we just looked at the last ten years, over the course of his lifetime it’s likely even more! The point is “paying in” isn’t a thing. Everyone ends up taking more than they contribute unless they’re extraordinarily wealthy.

I’m one of those modestly paid workers.

I think it’s morally repugnant to punch down on those on benefits as opposed to looking at the serious issues in this country.

I’m not ‘punching down’. I am a sincere believer in the welfare state. I’m proud we are not like the USA, and I’m happy for taxpayers money to support the most vulnerable.

But the ‘most vulnerable’ are not able bodied people who spend their days very lucidly and happily chatting away on internet forums, every day for many years, with absolute consistency, while claiming to be unable to do any work at all. Put to a vote the majority would agree with me, they just don’t feel able to say it.

The poster you’re quoting is disabled and isn’t ’choosing’ not to work. She can’t work because of her disability.

Disabled people come in for some of the worst criticism on benefit threads. They are treated as entitled fakers, who could work if they really wanted to but choose to drive around in ‘free cars’ having a lovely time taking the tax payer for a ride. Everyone on MN seemingly knows a faker who is more than happy to admit fraud.

The attitude is usually reflective of the rhetoric of whatever the government of the day, in order to influence public opinion so that they can slash the benefits of the most vulnerable with no opposition. And MN loves that, it swallows the narrative hook line and sinker with no critical thinking at all. There is little to no understanding of disability from those who have never experienced it themselves, or been a carer for someone disabled.

So forgive me if l don’t agree with your pov, which seems to be that benefit claimants should have no opinion and just accept the biased and ignorant judgement of those who are well off and have no realistic idea of what life on benefits is actually like. @youalright was perfectly correct in their assessment of those doing the moaning. A mortgage on a big house, a flash car, nanny’s for your kids, private schools all add up. Coming onto a benefit thread and moaning that a £100k salary ‘goes nowhere these days’ is obscene when there is so much inequality.

Paying in isn’t a thing, you’re right. The economy is fluid, there are no savings pots where tax paid rests and waits for its payee to retire.

But we have far far far too many people out of work who should be working, and we are virtually paying people to sit around and become unemployable. This is something I see in real life very very very regularly. It’s not an opinion taken from a scandal rag.

48% of state benefits go to pensioners and the triple lock is what has brought the benefits bill above income tax receipts.

But you’d rather go after disability benefits? Yes there may well be some people who could work, but in weeding out those few you’re also going to end up hurting people.

Exactly, for the first time ever other benefits are costing more than pensions. We have the equivalent of the entire population of Scotland on disability benefits. Some work but the majority do not.

Pensioners can’t work, they’re too old. It’s pointless going after pensions as they have zero chance of working and frankly many of them are coming towards their final few years of life. We have no choice but to address the workless population. It’s not just the enormous cost but the rate at which it is increasing. We can’t go on like this forever and the middle earners are quitting and lowering hours as it is - any more tax rises will see them dodge the cliff edge.

I'm happy to leave that decision making to medical professionals who actually see them in person and know their medical history.

There's a reason why it isn't based on how they come across online no matter how many people would vote for it.

Who are the people sitting around becoming unemployable ? Anyone on out of work benefits, including certain sickness benefits has to comply with mandatory job seeking activities and engage with a work coach or benefit is sanctioned. The only people who aren’t compelled to look for work are those with caring duties and the sick and disabled who have been through a work capability assessment and been found unable to work. Are these the people you think we should be hounding back to work ?

the same medical professionals pilloried on here for getting it wrong or being inattentive all the time! Anyway, they’ll process is pro forma. They don’t decide who is and isn’t unwell enough, they follow a series of tick boxes.

Well said! 👏

There’s a whole Panorama documentary on this, I suggest you watch it.

They aren't perfect, no one is but I'm 99% sure they know more about someone's medical history and work capability than a random person on the internet.

I’m also disabled and you won’t catch me internet browsing every single day as I work and by the time I finish work, I’m exhausted and often spend hours in bed.

You have to rely on the evidence of your eyes and ears.

Ah, so even though the majority of pensioners swan about on holidays and golfing and gardening, and are plenty able to work, you’d rather go after those who are disabled and can’t work. Because you see yourself as better than them because you’re disabled and can? What a nasty, nasty attitude.

You spend enough time online for me to almost instantly recognise who you are on threads like this no matter what name you are under.

I recognise your name and you turn up frequently on the benefit threads which contradicts your assertion of not browsing every single day.

Isn’t that the fault of of the government spreading the net too broadly in terms of disability.

I am 1000% behind people who are physically not able to work getting helps the state should throw their arms around them to give them all the support needed. But the fact remains now that there are mostly mental health conditions now which are falling into the net of disability and we just can’t afford it as a nation to cover all these conditions. That is a value judgment but a simple, objective, judgment that there isn’t the cash!

so people get angry with anyone disabled as everyone is grouped together.

You're always on here. Yours is one of the fe names I recognise when I see it. I don't know when you do work if you actually work because you seem to have a lot of time for someone with a full time job

Righto

Yeah I expected that reply. Anyway, work time!

righto Indeed!

there are a lot of women who have a baby every 3 years so they never have to work. That might be a very minor part of the pie but it does need to be stopped.