To think a lot of people make poor spending choices and then blame everything else?

[ThatTidySnake]

A lot of people are making very poor choices about what they spend their money on, and then it becomes everyone else’s problem or fault when they end up in an overdraft, with credit card debt or unable to afford things like repairs, food or presents. I get that not everyone is in the same position and circumstances matter, but it does sometimes feel like personal responsibility gets overlooked.

AIBU?

There is actually a Gov backed savings scheme for working people on UC. It is called Help To Save.

In my life I see a lot of this (hope the image comes through) and then they reach out at the point of ‘hard life’

You can buy a fridge for less than £6k, let alone less than £16k.

Large amounts of savings when you are not reliant on the state are great. They are a safety net for if something does go wrong so that you can hopefully cope without state assistance. This is beneficial for everyone and give the individual peace of mind.

Large amounts of savings when you're claiming benefits are obviously more controversial. This is the time to use your safety net. If you exhaust it then the state can step in but it isn't fair to hoard your savings on one hand and then ask everyone else for money on the other. The person that is most responsible for funding you is you. This is a fundamental truth for us all.

I know, my relative is eligible and uses this. This doesn't trump the savings limits though. It's intended to make sure the benefits claimants have some savings for emergencies but not tens of thousands. I think this is sensible.

But you are saying that someone on UC should not be allowed to save anything at all (if I read your last post correctly).
No one on UC is saving up £16k from zero. That sort of money tends to come from inheritance etc, or they had it before they started their claim.

Surely we should be encouraging people to save anyway, be they on UC or not.

I’m inclined to agree - there will always be some who are in debt due to life choices but through my work I’ve realised how many get a leg up in life - houses being bought for them, inheritances of hundreds of thousands from distant relatives etc - whilst it might not be enough to retire I think we can all agree we’d all be better off financially without a mortgage!! Whilst a lot is still earned from their career, to reach the higher salaries it often means university. University has yet again become for the rich - my partner and I are not classed as high earners yet we are expected to fund our child who is about to start uni with an extra £6k on top of loans which don’t even cover accommodation! Yes he does also work but studying full time and working is a lot. He gained a contextual offer on the basis that our postcode has less people going to uni due to deprivation factors yet there is no accounting for that when it comes to funding his place!!

Several years ago, DH was a mortgage advisor for a national bank. No less than three family members asked his advice about different mortgage options that were available at that time. He told them, very generally, the pros and cons of what was on offer. He was very clear that personally, he would avoid endowment mortgages, especially the ' low cost' optii, like the plague. Guess what they all went for? And then when they all got the red notice telling them how big a shortfall was predicted they all wanted him to advise them how to deal with it.
We've always advised our ds's to avoid unnecessary credit as much as possible - better a slightly older car that is completely yours than one on finance that could be repossessed if your circumstances take a downward turn.
I'm not sure the odd coffee from Costa is the problem for most people.

Worth being clear on exactly how this works. If you've got above 16k in savings, you'll get no UC and if you've got say £15,900 you'll get a small percent of the full award- it's withdrawn progressively if you have capital between 6k and 16k.

There is general societal benefit in people who rely on state support being able to have some safety net. It starts being withdrawn at 6k, which for the average household is going to be perhaps 3 months of basic expenses max. It's a very, very long time since these capital figures were revised. There might be room for discussion on whether they should be changed, but I'd want to know a lot more about claimant numbers at 15.9kish first.

Yes and no.

I think SOME individuals make very poor decisions. I have families asking for referrals to baby banks in one breath whilst in another they start discussing their manicure or planned holiday, or smoking their vape. That pisses me off because as the healthcare professional I can’t afford a holiday or a manicure! But ultimately I’m just there to make sure their baby gets what they need and if some cheap acrylics make all the difference to your mental health and self-esteem, it’s probably saving services some cash somewhere.

On the other hand, everything is insanely bloody expensive. And we live in a system that desperately seeks to sell us things. In a world where there is climate change, and war, and doom and gloom it’s very easy to seek little dopamine hits from buying things, especially when they are being pushed on us all the time.

No, that isn't what I meant by my post. I was debating the £6k/£16k savings limit with another poster. A small amount of savings is clearly preferable to none. £16k is above the national average for people under 55. Some people can and do save money from benefits and it can go past £16k. I know this factually. It wasn't from £0-£16k but when you're on benefits for years and saving a bit every week it soon adds up.

Why does money from an inheritance or anywhere else could differently? Why shouldn't you use this to support yourself instead of rely on the state in the first instance?

Why should we be encouraging benefit claimants to save more than £16k instead of encouraging them to spend their money supporting themselves?

I'm sure for some it is partly that, but it's easy to make poor choices when you are poor to start with and can't afford life.

No.

You've completely ignored the context and intent of the post.

Although, in some circumstances, yes. My brother has a well-paid job, but money burns a hole in his pocket, so he is up to his ears in debt. He's burnt his bridges borrowing money and treating people like shit, so yes. It's his fault he's poor.

Well yes, but at the moment, the spendthrifts just spend it and enjoy it, whereas those more responsible and try to save are penalised. But yes, if ANYONE can afford to save out of benefits, it does tend to suggest that benefits are too high in the first place and need reducing. After all, as benefits are based on a specific set of rules, and some people are saving, then those who aren't, who are getting the same benefits, do appear to be over-spending and don't "need" all the benefits they receive. But that's different to penalising those who can save.

Yes. I hate wasting money on electric, heating, keeping a roof over my head and food. I’d much rather make a positive spending choice by having some enjoyment in life but due to inflation that is the going to happen.

Unfortunately, the way things are set up now, we need the tax from people "wasting" money on vapes and manicures and slug eyebrows to pay for climate change, wars, etc. I think there's an assumption within government that a lot of the benefits paid out does in fact come back in via tax from spending so the "net" cost is a lot smaller and it keeps the economy moving. Utterly bonkers of course, but it's where we are at the moment.

While we all focus on how much each other have - no one is looking at the multi-billion pound tax evading corporations...

Oh make no mistake, everyone is looking at them. Why on earth wouldn't they? Do you think Labour wouldn't have taxed them to the hilt if they could have sensibly done this? It's literally the vast majority of Labour members dream and has huge public endorsement. Sadly the reality is that no country has successfully cracked this tax nut. Even if they did, there is still a worklessness crisis in this country and an over reliance on welfare. It's not good for anyone and needs to be sorted even if we could miraculously tax Amazon and Starbucks properly.

It is like a lot of things in life, some people will be able to resist certain things, whereas others will not. It is not as simple as saying stop doing xyz.

to say you shouldn’t save benefits doesn’t recognise that costs/spending is different over the year - Christmas, heating, school holidays, things breaking, school uniform costs.

Well no not really because they can resist if they try hard enough.

But if they're going to blame everything/everyone else, nothing's ever going to change.

It's called being an adult and outside of any mental health issues or other additional needs, responsibility for our spending choices is all part of it.

some of my work colleagues, have always pleaded poverty, with parents etc having to step in and help out financially. Yet they’ll continuously go to the theatre and gigs plus multiple holidays.
I have never pled poverty but rarely do these things, having once had financial difficulties (through no fault of ours, I want to save and not be wasteful, I strive to save.

I agree completely OP. I have friends in their late 30s who have no pension and rent in fairly precarious situations, but prioritise clothes, beauty treatments and (very regular) nights out/trips away. They have no savings and no prospects of better employment as they hop from job to job and aren’t qualified to do anything specifically. It’s terrifying

Yes. But it’s nothing new. Some people just can’t prioritise. 🤷‍♀️. And then they moan and look to someone to help them out. 🙄

Nobody is saying you can't save them at all. You are allowed £6k of savings without being penalised at all. The point is that benefit claimants should be using their own funds first before relying on the state, so allowing more savings is basically encouraging the opposite. You can maintain your own savings that may exceed the national average and yet claim to the state (I.e. taxpayers with less savings than you) that you need their help to survive. It doesn't make sense

It's complicated, of course. Budgeting and normal life finances aren't taught at schools so many people end up in bad situations or making silly decisions through ignorance. People are constantly advertised to, companies use underhand methods to get money (eg sneaky subscription price raises) and of course things like payday loans target the vulnerable.

I'm generally not in favour of blaming individual responsibility when there are clear systemic issues at play. However, there are always exceptions, and both are at play in different situations.

I have a friend who is always saying how skint she is, to the point we are in our 30s and she doesn't want to get lunch, even coffee is too much often and we just go for a walk. But she regularly goes on holidays, weekend getaways, lots of gigs and trips to London. It's like she doesn't understand that the reason she has no money all month is because she spends it all on expensive things as soon as payday hits! She makes more money than I do!