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?

They only accept the information they're being fed that fits their narrative then they continously parrot it (like so many others with the anti-benefit agenda) despite being otherwise informed.

Facts and evidence about how UC actually works is not accepted.

As opposed to the people now living in absolute destitution to pay for pensions? The end of your life should be cheaper than the start, why are we expected to fund lives of luxury?

I'm still waiting to be shown the evidence that proves people on UC who do not work are completely unaware of how much things cost. As I sit with my banking app open and monthly spreadsheet of figures. Then I'm off to Tesco for my steak.

And unless you’re keeping that cash under the mattress you would have to draw it out of the bank, which would be questioned. DWP don’t just take claimants’ word for things, they investigate. And as of 6th April the banks are now accountable for reporting transactions on the accounts of benefit claimants which suggest fraud.

Well then rather than means testing the whole system needs overhauling because up to now this is the way pensions have always worked - those who are working today paying for the pensions of those who retired before them. A giant ponzi scheme.

Yes I know 3. One of them was 36 and had two kids. She was proud of the fact that she had never worked and was upset that now the youngest was secondary age she'd been told she might have to get a job by the job centre.
It is a few years ago so the rules have hopefully changed.

The poster said the council tax is cheaper, not that she doesn’t pay it at all.

But do you understand that even if every single claimant was genuine and in desperate need, the government can’t continually increase the budget to pay for it? Once upon a time the welfare budget was about 5% of government spending, it’s now about 25% ish? What happens if it gets to 50%. At what point is it unsustainable?

you could stop pensions for most but I’m not sure any government would touch that. It is already taxed anyway so the government get a lot back for those who have private pensions. I’m not convinced the savings would be worth it.

If you suddenly started to pay large sums into a pension pot to get under the limit, it would be considered deprivation of assets.

Ok but I'm referring to people like that poster who aren't simply sharing facts and concerns about the government budget.

They insist on portraying all benefit claimants as lazy, scroungers, fraudsters, unemployed etc even when informed otherwise. That is what I'm referring to.

Actually, it wouldn’t.
You can defer your income to your pension to make sure that you utilise the universal credits available to you while the children are young or under 18 at least
But if you received an inheritance and you put it into your pension that’s completely within the rules

But that doesn’t change the fact that the pov of this poster is that benefit claimants are scroungers and disabled people should be forced to work. That’s based on open contempt for disabled people who don’t work, simply because the poster is disabled and does work. Add to that the fundamental lack of understanding as to why benefits are paid, and it’s easy to see why dangerous misinformation can take hold and spread online. l had to explain to the poster that PIP assesses disability to determine the extra costs incurred because of it. It turns out that despite being disabled they have never applied for PIP despite having significant disability related costs, because they basically had no clue as to why it’s paid.

Means test and end the triple lock. That’s literally the solution.

It is ideological. Keep the poor in their place. You only have to look at the comments on any site to see how well various governments have done at convincing people that the unemployed and low paid are the enemy.

Means testing is basically being done as pensions are taxed. Yes you could say anyone paying higher rate tax on their pensions get zero but I doubt that would reduce the bill much.

It’s been shown that a wealth tax of 2% on assets over £10 million would cover the benefits bill and other public services. The money is there, it’s just not being distributed properly.

https://patrioticmillionaires.uk/latest-news/policy-recommendations-2025#:~:text=1.,%C2%A324%2520billion%2520a%2520year.

Moving existing savings into a pension pot to take you under the UC limit would be viewed as deprivation of capital. The DWP can treat it as notional capital, act as if you still have the money and reduce your benefits accordingly. While money held in a personal/company pension is generally disregarded from capital limits, deliberately transferring cash into one to avoid UC limits still falls under the deliberate deprivation rules.

Using savings or an inheritance to pay off debts or make reasonable, essential purchases is generally fine, but hiding it in a pension to keep benefits is not allowed.

A small percentage wealth tax on assets over a certain amount for the very wealthy would be a better one. Means testing is a race to the bottom and designed to keep the poor in their place.

If you can't work due to illness, and are under pensionable age, there may be benefits that you are eligible for, e.g. PIP. Over pensionable age, there is Pension Credit. Check with your local Citizens Advice. They have calculators that can identify which benefits may be available to you. Have a look at their web site.

No, it’s not. But for some reason the pension is untouchable.

Everything is allowed if it’s deemed reasonable
Might not be palatable if the person was 30 but if the person was 50 it would be fine. I know this because I’ve done it.
The decisionmakers have an element of discretion to apply common sense in all sorts of situations not gonna go into my individual ones but I have done many of the things listed against the rules but for logical good reason and therefore it’s been allowed

Wealth taxes are very difficult to administer. It means every individual in the country itemising all their assets from houses, jewellery, paintings, etc. every single person has to submit what they won to the state. I find that very uncomfortable myself given the government carte Blanche to know everything I own. If it thinks I am lying will they have the right to enter and check my jewellery box?

Well if you have a certain amount of money why should you be allowed full benefits or where would it end if you had endless amounts, if you have £6k saved that would probably sort most families out for 2 months, with £16k limit before benefits stop that £16k would last nearly a yr

My guess is it equals 3 month's salary which is what is suggested you save to give yourself some breathing space if you lose your job. (I appreciate not everyone earns £30k a year

Politicians worth millions still get benefits.