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

Perkingfaintly

Yes .. that is correct .. Contribution based ESA is the grand sum of ... £73 a week... but as most people's largest expense is mortgage/rent.. It doesn't help at all.. he had to wait until the savings were below £16k to. E entitled to any help with rent.

Which is as it should be.

My argument is that the rates for those on any kind of benefit are inhuman .. and until now, those not forced to live on them couldn't give a toss that people who are not just unemployed but sick ( or in my husband's case - suddenly unable to work due to an accident that he was not liable for in anyway.. ) .. all set at the same level.. for months .. until assessments are completed many months later.

I get that and access is an issue but as you say how do you police it. I'm not saying the situation isn't crap by the way, but this is unprecedented.

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

Yes because that's what all of us who don't have any savings did.

You and your posts are ridiculous 🙄

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

Of course you do! Fuck all those who are born disabled, they should be grateful for scraps thrown at them as they haven't contributed.

What may happen is we can’t afford to pay the mortgage. We default. It gets repossessed. We loose the deposit money i saved hard for, our tenants loose their homes. We will then be entitled to UC. Same outcome but a few months later and with at least one family turfed out their homes.

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

No. I'm suggesting that if you've been lucky enough to be in a position to save that kind of money you STFU and spend it now rather than nesting on it and taking money out of the benefits pot. Because all that's happened here is that things have largely gone well for you for a long time but for others they haven't, they're used to that but you're not and now you're just going to have to suck it up when things don't go your way. We live in an unequal society don't you know. You're getting a taste of that. Not pleasant is it?

@TheArchSorcererofContwaraburg

Nope, most of them will already have paid far more in then they plan on taking out. The thing with contributors is, they work and pay tax, so that non contributors can have a free at the point of service health and education system, along with their subsidised housing and benefits to use for daily living expenses.

It really does make sense to look after those with the ability and desire to work - the more they are supported to get back on their feet, the sooner they will become tax payers again. Also, if they’ve been supported during their time if need, they’re less likely to begrudge paying taxes for services. No brainer!

our tenants loose their homes.

Not necessarily. Often enough whoever buys the repo will offer a new contract to the sitting tenants.

But by your reckoning other taxpayers who haven't been able to 'save hard' like you should pay for you to keep assets they may never be able to afford themselves. That's not going to happen. And shouldn't.

Nope, most of them will already have paid far more in then they plan on taking out.

VERY, very, very few people pay in far more than they take out. That's society for you.

@YgritteSnow

Ridiculous? A lot of people really admire the social welfare systems in Germany and Scandinavia.

Educate yourself and stop picking on a middle aged woman just because she’s been able to save a bit of money.

If you have savings for a wedding then where’s your rainy day savings? If you haven’t got rainy day savings then erm..

I lost my job before the lock down as I’m SE. At the moment I’m using savings. I can support myself so why shouldn’t I?

The government loves to fuck over the most vulnerable. And I don’t really want to add to their cuts that will come after this. I don’t want to participate in this.

A lot of us have seen the decimation those barbaric cuts caused and still cause. In fact it’s worse at the moment, for those now.

If we don’t use savings now, who do you think will pay for it? Those who need them survive, to have support etc. And of course tax payers not to help keep those service, but to close them still.

By which time you won’t care. You will be back at work. You savings going back up. That paltry sum you felt so entitled to, a life time ago.

Well done. You had a brief glimpse into the world of benefits. Something to talk about at the next dinner party, or even in the wedding toast.

Meanwhile, because you had some sense of entitlement, things are even worse for those who need benefits to exist.

Can't believe people actually think they should get benefits to protect their bloody wedding money, biggest fecking waste of money going.

@TheArchSorcererofContwaraburg

47% of adult citizens are net contributors.

@TheArchSorcererofContwaraburg

“ bloody wedding money, biggest fecking waste of money going.”

I’ll agree with you on that.

Sure they are, Loo.

That's less than half at any rate.

the difference is people's mindsets in what a benefits system is for

Really? Because the usual Tory, small government line is that benefits should only be a safety net for those who need it. Not benefits should be freely accessible to all regardless of financial circumstance.

Apparently that only applies when the claimant is poor, though.

No one is getting shafted here. If they said that everyone with savings must live on those until they have £0, then you can get benefits, maybe you’d have a point. But that’s not the case.

Derbygerbil Thu 02-Apr-20 16:42:54
'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 hmm'

The National INSURANCE system - the clue is in the name - (as established 1948) was a contributory system. Gradually the contributory element atrophied. No-one is arguing that people be left to starve, but I suspect there is widespread support for a return to a greater contributory element.

It used to be the case for example, that those with a good N.I. contributions record, received more unemployment benefit than those without (I and a friend were once unemployed, he received more me - I thought that fare). Oddly, this 'contributory bonus' was ended by Mrs Thatcher in the 1980s, and payments to 'contributors & non-contributors' were equalised. Indeed, in some case the latter began to receive more than the former eg State Pensions/Pension Credit.

The return to a more contributory system has already begun. 1) the post 2016 contributory State Pension will no longer be less than means-tested Pension Credit (indeed slightly more). 2) new residents to the UK are now required to pay before accessing NHS services.

the more they are supported to get back on their feet, the sooner they will become tax payers again.

To clarify, you believe that someone with significantly over £16k in savings will be prevented from getting back on their feet by not having access to a few hundred pounds a month in benefits?

stop picking on a middle aged woman just because she’s been able to save a bit of money. .

Please report any posts that show me to "picking on a middle aged woman" won't you? Why do you keep mentioning she's middle aged? What does that have to do with anything? I'm "middle aged" too 🤷‍♀️.

Question. A single parent saves up £2000 for to take her children on holiday. Someone crashes into her car. No fault of her own. Insurance pay out is very little so won't cover the cost of a new car. Should the government step in cover her costs to replace the car - its essential, she has to have one. If not why not?

Or a family are saving up for an extension on their home. A family member becomes ill and they have to spend the money on travel to go see them. Should the government step in and pay for their travel so they can protect their extension savings? If not why not?

Oh ffs live of your 5k a month and be grateful!

As I said on another thread, my son is self employed. He has several jobs which just cover his rent and outgoings. He has no savings. He lives with his girlfriend who does have savings.
He is not entitled to any help because their income is counted as joint. They aren’t married, his girlfriend will not give him money just lend it. Quite rightly. He is up shit creek.

@Mirada

Agreed. Except I always thought it was Janes Callaghan’s Labour government who removed the contributions element and made it means tested, in 1979?

I don't agree that everyone with no savings is poor and destitute and living paycheck to paycheck. I have several friends who have always earned more than me but buy new TVs every year, new cars and go out drinking in London 4x a week.

Then again, there is an argument that people who have frittered all their money away have contributed more to the economy - they've contributed tax through VAT on all those goods, and increased profit for companies who will pay tax on those profits. Whereas my savings are sitting there helping no-one but me.

@TheArchSorcererofContwaraburg if you’d read my previous posts you’d see that if it was up to us we’d give up our ‘asset’ to use as the money to get by. But we CANT.

And yes our tenants might get given another contract but probably at market rate rather than the lower rate we charge and as they have already told us they cannot afford to pay their rent this month they may struggle to get another contract at all.

Everything has a knock on effect to the economy