Universal Credit should relax £16,000 savings eligibility rule

[DreamChaser23]

do you agree? This is to ensure other workers who were laid off and have 16k OR higher in savings should also be eligible for help.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/dwp-must-change-universal-credit-21792760.amp

Savings are great. But they are a safety net. You've lost your job and can't pay the bills - you have savings.

@Derbygerbil At fault of what? Of being on UC? No, I wasn't saying that.

And surely it’s not hard to see that even if people were saving for something specific and something more important and urgent (unemployment in this case) comes along you dip into those savings. No point buying a house if you are unemployed and cannot pay the mortgage. No point buying a £20k car if you are out of work and have no income.

@totallycluelessoverhere

Change comes from crisis so hopefully the result will be a two tier system similar to Scandinavia and Germany. It makes sense - not just morally in terms of giving back to people who have paid in but also economically in that it gives those who have been contributors the chance to contribute again. It does this by giving them breathing space to find a similar level of job or retrain and start contributing again.

A lot of posters on this thread don’t seem to grasp that the government needs more contributors than non contributors in order to pay for the non contributors services and benefits.

I can't believe this even needs to be debated.

£16k is some people's yearly salary, as well. It's a massive hoard.

@rio5555 but you still have an "asset" whereas some people dont. What about someone who has 5 properties & rents them all out below market value, should we help them? Where is the line drawn?

This thread highlights how loads of people think, yes the country should pay more taxes but not me as I can't afford it. The benefits system should be stricter but not for me because of 'X'.

bushhbb not after working over 40 years and saving a bit now and again

@bushhbb

We live in a democracy, so tough.

Some people think the benefits system should be contributions based and some people think it should be means tested. I vote for contributions based and you vote for means tested.

Given the way the country has voted in recent years, I suspect contributions based will win over means tested. I don’t have a crystal ball though, that’s just my opinion.

@Hester54

I really feel for you and as others have said, I would look at putting your savings into a pension.

It’s shit to do what you’re supposed to do and then get shafted for doing the right thing.

It’s shit to do what you’re supposed to do and then get shafted for doing the right thing

WTF?! We've ALL been shafted by the pandemic. Don't you get that?! We all mostly did what we were supposed to do but it worked out better for some than for others often because they had a bit of luck to start with. Some of us had disabled children to care for, or our husbands left us, or we had shit parents who didn't support, or we just weren't born with the kind of brain that allows us to process education the way others do.

Honestly can't believe how entitled and tone deaf people are being on this thread.

@Fedupandpoor

You said people who were “now” unemployed, which I took to mean that those who suddenly have found themselves unemployed were somehow deserving whereas those that were unemployed before weren’t, but I realise I might have read too much into your words.

Some people think the benefits system should be contributions based and some people think it should be means tested. I vote for contributions based and you vote for means tested.

So if you’ve not paid in, tough you starve on the streets! Really? Because that’s what you’re advocating

Why do you need a Government run benefits systems if it’s all contributions based... Everyone surely just contributes into savings or investments, and draws it out when they need it. If they can’t do that, well, tough shit - survival of the fittest and all that.

@YgritteSnow

Your comment, amongst others, just demonstrates how divided this country is. You resent a middle aged woman for working all her life and saving a bit when she can over 40 years. Do you not realise you are taking your anger out on the wrong people?

It’s shit to do what you’re supposed to do and then get shafted for doing the right thing

I am pretty well off so I do not say this from jealousy- that is an absolutely awful thing to say.

@Derbygerbil

Actually you are making things up, at no point have I advocated what you are saying I have. In fact, here’s a post I made earlier, at 15:49:

“ Something along the lines of the systems those terribly right wing countries in Scandinavia and Germany have in place?

One tier for those that have contributed - it’s a percentage of your former salary for a fixed period of time. It’s to give you time to look for a similar type of role, or to retrain.

A subsistence level benefit for those that haven’t contributed. People from the contributions based class do move onto this after a fixed period of time.

Note - people who haven’t contributed due to disability are also protected, not living off the subsistence level benefit.”

I'm not angry @LooQoo. I'm disgusted.

Absolutely @Deathgrip has said everything that needs to be said here.

UC is there to keep people from the brink of desperation. If you have thousands of pounds of your own money, you don't need government assistance.

ScurfyTwiglet but what about all them people that had not bothered to save when they could, you’re happy to give them a hand out, but not people that had sacrificed things to save

I agree with a previous poster, the difference is people's mindsets in what a benefits system is for. Is it means tested or is it a combination of means testing and contribution based payments.

I think the latter. People who have diligently paid in, saved, done the right thing should be supported more than whose who haven't.

You might disagree with me, that's your right in a free country, but inevitably the country will decide through the ballot box on the best course of action.

YgritteSnow so are you suggesting you are more worthy because things haven’t gone your way?

@YgritteSnow

Yes, she should have spent it on fast cars and loose men when she had the chance.

Not going to happen when 1m people just signed on.

She’s not in the wrong. It’s that if someone has a huge amount in savings (and over £16,000 is a huge amount by National standards).

She's not far off the 16k though having saved her disability benefits for goodness knows how many years. But yet if she goes over the 16k she'll lose her benefits so now has no incentive to save. It's ludicrous. And I don't just only care now because others are affected, I have always cared.

So other taxpayers should pay for people with £16k+ in savings to keep their hoard. Yeah, right.

@mochajoes it might normally be an asset but right now it’s an asset I can’t access. I just think assets should only be counted if they are accessible. However I understand the struggle in policing that.

If the bank/government whoever said they would take the house off us and give us the equity we’d happily use that rather than claim UC or any other benefit. I have no problem in using savings/assets before claiming, my problem is at the moment I have access to neither.