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?

Why do you pay your national insurance if not to support you if necessary?

6k is ridiculously low , it’s most household wages for one to 2 months

I work full time and have usually around 1k in my savings. Why should you get benefits if you have money in the bank?

Stop asking ChatGPT. It wastes valuable drinking water and has been proven to lower cognitive abilities.

Most people on UC are in work so if you are on enough money to not qualify for UC the question is how are you not managing to save? Are you putting extra money into your pension for example.

People are using their savings first. Nobody is saying otherwise. It's only when savings get to less than £16K (including what's in your current account etc) that you are entitled to claim UC.

Disagree. What you can claim should be proportionate to what you have paid in, not related to savings. Those who have paid fuck all in, get fuck all out.

OK, I am on UC. If I get to the end of the month with £5 in my account, why do you think that means I have "too much"?

True but you can see the issue that there are people who don’t qualify for benefits and can’t save a penny and get zero assistance. They can’t save to get a new car or boiler etc. Then someone who does qualify for benefits can come into a lump sum of say, £10k and continue to receive benefits.

I can see why there is a quite a large people who do fall into that category and they are probably the most vocal about the benefits system being unfair.

Because it costs the taxpayer MORE to make people run their savings down to nothing.

If someone loses their job, and needs to buy a car to access a new job, how does it benefit me as a taxpayer to stop that happening?

Savings prevent homelessness, worklessness, ill health, crime - all of which cost taxpayers a lot.

Savings are a nessary thing. You need to be prepared for life uncertainties. I have savings and claim UC. I don't see the issue.

Why can't they if you earn to much to get benefits then you have more coming in then someone on benefits so if they can save why can't you. Where is all your money going because people on benefits still have the same bills to pay that you do.

So you don't have people in crisis which then overall costs the state even more! There has to be some sort of savings threshold and that threshold hasn't changed for over 30 years!

Well I guess the big difference for many people is that someone paying a large mortgage each month has much higher outgoings than someone on UC getting all their rent paid for them.

Yep, £6k is fuck all.
It cost my DP several £k to move from one rental place to another.

Same its called being an adult your boiler or car could break tomorrow. You need to be prepared

I think when talking about policy people do have to try to be rational and look at what really happens.

Many of the people most vocal about benefits being 'unfair' are those who are actually wealthy - they want to remove state support.

Benefits should be a reliable safety net for all us little people.

I have a mortgage why wouldn't people on uc have mortgages

Even saving £5 a month adds up- yes very slowly- but it does. If someone can save on UC then I am impressed by the frugality.

No, because people with mortgages can and do claim UC too.

Yes, the people most vocal about wanting cuts to benefits wont be affected if they are.

It’s always the people who complain about benefits scroungers who also complain as soon as they are in the same situation. ‘Why have I worked and payed x all these years and I’m only entitled to y?’ They can’t seem to make the connection that they and the ‘scrounger’ are the same person and the real scroungers are the billionaires who want to pit the people who work hardest and still need benefits to survive against each other. It’s the people at the top that are using the system to their advantage to pay a the smallest percentage of their earnings in tax compared to the average worker. People on benefits pay tax too but that never gets mentioned in debates like these.

If big business paid their fair share wages would be enough to live on without UC top ups and the state would save a fortune. The people who are really being subsidised are the Richard Tice’s of this world.

So somebody who has only been working for five years, but then sustains a life-changing injury rendering them unable to work, should only get a tiny bit of money. Nice.

Well why should someone spend the savings they may have spent 30 years to accumulate on prescriptions, national insurance contributions, council tax and the rest. Whilst everyone who never saved get these all paid for them?

Maybe the savers should piss it down the drain during their last few months of work before the redundancy begins so they can get some assistance that they've never had before.
Get a beamer and go on a few holidays. Get the kids all their dream presents and go out for daily meals out till the money is gone - then claim.

People should not be penalised for being careful with their money, frugal and a good saver, whilst those that piss it away get handouts.

Where's the incentive to be careful with money?

You do realise if you suddenly lost your job or became ill or disabled and had to claim uc you would still have your mortgage to pay.

If you are on universal credits for any length of time, you would lose your house
They only pay up to a certain amount of the mortgage. I believe it’s up to £100,000 worth of mortgage.
And they only pay it at a certain rate, whether that’s the rate that you’re paying or not
My mortgage at 100,000 is about 970 a month because I had to take it over a short period
They would pay 350 of that according to entitled to.com