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?

The question re all the “free stuff” us claimants get…

I pay a mortgage with interest rate of 4.36%, no special deals
I pay the going rate for council tax with single person discount
I do get the warm home discount but that is also based on other things
I am on the BT internet discounted tariff
I have taken advantage of one discounted rate to the Tower of London last year
I had to replace the boiler last year, I didn’t qualify for any special scheme
My children are not eligible for FSM but will be in September
I go to an NHS dentist and pay the going rate
I don’t get free prescriptions

Everything else is paid at the normal rate. Any “savings” I have made from the above is not offset by receiving benefits. No one is better off going on benefits just to get the “free stuff”

I suppose I live in a childish imaginary world where employers pay an actual wage, and taxpayers ( ie the general public) don't have to subsidise business, but here we are ...

But most employers can’t afford to pay people a living wage. I know at the businesses I work with they are letting people go and no pay rises. The rates and Ni increase meant they can’t afford to pay people any more money. Because of the minimum wage increase some don’t take on young people anymore to give them experience as can’t afford to. Honestly, most businesses are not there thinking how can I exploit my workers, they are literally just concentrating on not going out of business.

This - everyone here cheering for tax rises which means businesses are closing, while simultaneously wondering why people aren’t being paid more generous wages. Don’t even get me started on a wealth tax which would solve the problem for 18 months then what - another wealth tax? It’s not self sufficient, it’s just robbing Peter to pay Paul and then back to square 1 a couple of years later.

There is no way of fixing the economy so the current model of benefits can keep going. Frankly we urgently need to stop all but the most disabled (1% at most) of under 25s from claiming, as it’s setting them up for a loss of work ethic, long unemployment gaps and an expectation that other people will always cough up for them.

Life is hard, nobody is special and different in that regard. The majority of people do not enjoy their job and find it exhausting or demoralising in some way. Moving for work, or taking a job you really don’t fancy, has been part of life since forever. There’s a reason countries like Poland are prospering while we are sinking into irrelevance - their work ethic is incredible, nobody feels exempt from society while expecting to be financed.

And I stand by my remark that a person that can post consistently, lucidly, and thoughtfully about fairly complex topics all day, for years and years, is absolutely capable of getting an admin job. This subjective ‘you’re as ill as you say you are’ model of disability has to end. If you can date, have children, look after pets, go on strenuous exercise outings and so on, you’re well enough for work, no ifs or buts.

Its to strike a balance between allowing people enough to deal with emergencies and not having so much it generates income. Apparently £6k is the upper limit before the interest would generate enough to be considered extra income and be another thing to have to factor into the calculation.

Yeah... so not such a good business plan if you cant actually pay your staff.
Also... no offense- but thats bollox when we're taking about large multi-national corporations not paying a decent wage.They're creaming the profit whilst the taxpayer subsidises the wages bill.

There is no such thing as a ‘you’re as ill as you say you are’ system. You have to back up everything you say with evidence. A few pages back you demonstrated very clearly that you haven’t a clue about the basis on which disability benefits are paid. And no, just because you post lucidly on line does not mean you can work. Having the ability to be lucid and literate doesn’t negate the other effects of disability which are enough to stop you working, despite being lucid and literate.

Yep. If the allowance was set to zero people would have to rely on the crisis fund to pay for emergencies. Not to mention that those working and claiming UC would render themselves ineligible every time they were paid. No critical thinking on this at all from some.

I didn’t say that. I said the social model of disability now strongly relies on self reporting, in that if somebody says they can’t do something, everyone has to agree even if all evidence points to them being able to do things that suit them (just not work).

The common sense approach has been lost because ‘validating’ people’s claims about their capabilities has come at the expense of using objective assessments of what they can and can’t do.

A person who can spend all day writing online, very consistently, for years, completely lucidly and in a chatty, social manner (eg not posting to discuss their MH, or seeking support), can absolutely do an admin job. They’ve proved their mental state is stable enough to do it, because if in that time they were very mentally unwell then they wouldn’t be online chatting away about anecdotes, pet care, politics or whatever else.

Back in the 8-‘s I bought a house for £16000 with a deposit of £1600. £6k in those days was over one year’s salary at what would be minimum wage. That was what was deemed reasonable to have in reserve for emergencies so as not to rely on the state for everything. The equivalent allowance today, had things kept pace, would be £26k.

I think £5,000 or so is about right because I agree you can’t only start claiming benefits once you have NOTHING especially given the delay in it being awarded - I think a 6 week buffer is appropriate.

But there should be no second houses, no regular financial ‘gifts’ from other people. Nothing squirrelled away in ‘children’s savings’.

You’re talking nonsense again. PIP isn’t based on the social model of disability. That was disability living allowance and attendance allowance. PIP is based on the medical model and looks at what the claimant can’t do instead of what they could do if they had an award of benefit.

I’ve been holding off going into detail about aspects of disability in relation to your ludicrous statements regarding the ability to work if you can string a lucid sentence together. How do you support someone with no control over bowels and bladder in a work setting ? If that person is in a wheelchair and requires help with toileting and cleaning themselves afterwards who is going to do it ? Would you, as a work colleague ? No, of course you wouldn’t. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Second homes are counted as capital for UC and would render claimants ineligible. Monetary gifts from friends or relatives all have to be declared on the UC journal and the DWP decide what counts and what doesn’t, not the claimant. Anything not declared and paid via bank will show up when the claimant is asked to supply several months worth of bank statements, with the potential for benefit to be stopped while they investigate. I’d be interested for your opinion as to how to monitor gifts given in cash.

And the £6k buffer was set in the 1990’s when it was a year’s wages, which was deemed appropriate for dealing with any emergencies or life events without recourse to the state. If things had kept pace, in today’s terms it would be £26k, so no, 6k is not all that generous if the intent is to allow a cushion so that the claimant isn’t reliant on the state for everything life throws at them.

I didn’t say PIP assessment. I said the social model, and that’s what you’re proving with your responses. You’re pretending not to know what I mean, as is always the case on these threads.

Followed, of course, by stating a rare disability which applies to a tiny minority and making out it’s a common scenario .

Not if a relative lives in it, and I’ve seen people get around it this way.

I know exactly what you mean. And the social and medical models are applied to disability benefits, which is what we’re talking about, so if you’re not referring to that, then what ? And FYI incontinence isn’t a rare disability affecting a tiny minority. It’s actually a common factor in many health conditions across the board and is particularly relevant to spinal disability and injury, as well as those who are permanently in wheelchairs.

I can assure you that the DWP does not concern itself with validating peoples feelings, whatever the wider societal trend may be for this.
Assessments are made by considering self reported difficulties alongside medical evidence that the self report is conversent with what may be expected for a person with that condition.
And there is quite clearly a difference between an ability to post on line without leaving ones home (or even bed) as and when a person feels up to it, than travelling into an office by 9am every day, remaining there for 8 hours doing what you're told, to someone else's time frame.
How tolerant do you think an employer is going to be of an administrator who has a couple of bad days per week and calls in sick, or who needs to lie down for a couple of hours during the work day, or can only do parts of the job that require typing, leaving colleagues to cover the other duties, or can only complete tasks at a very slow pace with multiple breaks?

then it’s no problem if they go bust then is it and employ nobody and give no money to the exchequer? Most businesses would be able to pay higher wages if they don’t have to pay high rates and high NI. If the government chopped 5% off employers NI tomorrow I’d pass it straight on as pay rises

The fact is the uk is built upon a back bone of entrepreneurial small business which can no longer compete.

big corps should pay more tax but if the government could make them then they would. The fact they can’t tells you it’s impossible due to global tax rates. It is nigh on impossible to stop big corps structuring companies to minimise their tax

The same people who want to force some disabled people into work also seem to be the same people on other threads who don't seem to think that workplaces should do much, if anything at all, to support these people they would force into work.

Indeed. Moan about people on benefits. Moan about disabled people not 'pulling their weight' at work.

Fucking hell, that poster is obsessed with me. They do this on other threads too. They even have had a go at my dead grandmother on a thread about care home fees, and tried to encourage people to AS me to cause a pile on.
I am not going to go into the very personal attacks they made under a different name, where they would just not leave me alone (they were along the lines of the NHS "wasting money" trying to treat me).
And you... don't even reply or quote me. Just leave me the fuck alone. If you want to rant about me again, sit on your hands and do it in your head.
I wish MN would allow you to block posters on the boards.

Anyway, can we stay on topic now?

Can you just stop with these attacks on another poster? You don’t know their actual circumstances so just stop with these attacks jibes and unpleasantness. Argue your point, but don’t make it personal. Your posts at the weekend were deleted for the same reason. I

Oh for crying out loud.

You have turned up on every single benefit thread on here since I started posting, volunteering your own private circumstances before then playing the victim when people don’t just go ‘awww, so happy you’re being supported’ and instead take a contrary position or dare to ask you about it.

Benefits are clearly something you find very upsetting and the discussion of policy something you take personally, so I’m at a loss as to why you pop up again and again wanting to talk about them before throwing a strop that you don’t get 100% agreement and constant validation.

You shared your story about your grandparents completely without prompting. I asked a few very gentle questions, which caused another strop. Stop sharing stuff if you don’t want to talk about it!

You asked me to stop commenting to you, I respected that and moved on. You then started commenting about me in the third person, I do the same back - another strop.

I appreciate my position re benefits is upsetting and even outrageous to some, but your repeated tactic of sharing personal details and entering every discussion before then getting the violin out and painting people as monsters if they argue your point on the face of the facts is just ludicrous for a grown adult with agency.

And yes this will be my last comment to you because we’re derailing and clearly have nothing good or even interesting to discuss without it descending into tears and accusations.

I thought you where going to work yet another day where you are available to be on here all day. You don't have a job do you?

The facts are that they don’t want SME’s because we’ve seen what happened in Covid. They went to the wall in a matter of days without government support and most of them fell apart pretty quick even with it.
They’re just not viable