Savings Gateway

LucyTheDwarf

SeanW wrote: »

I thought it was us, and the Americans in particular, spending what we didn't have that led to this situation anyway!

I could spend all my savings now which will please the government, then in 2 or 3 years get a 100% mortgage for a over priced house, then in 6 years get repossessed during the next "credit crunch" because of irresponsible attitutudes to spending, saving and borrowing.

Indeed!!!!

pfpf

LucyTheDwarf wrote: »

EDIT: Does age and personal circumstances come into it? He's 20, and living at home still.

use the official site:

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/taxcredits/do-you-qualify.htm

good luck.

edit, scrap that. he doesnt qualify. i didnt realise the WTC rules were so harsh. sorry.

LucyTheDwarf

Thank you for looking, very kind of you to take an interest.

john_s_2

Just a quicky on the comment about people on Jobseekers Allowance being able to 'afford to save'. If and when such people need to replace large items (such as a cooker, or maybe a winter coat), if they don't have the money to hand then they have to apply for a loan from the Government (the Social Fund), which is then deducted from their benefit till it's repaid.

If Jobseekers Allowance pays enough to repay a loan then it's not wholly unreasonable to encourage people to save instead.

MariaTom

SeanW wrote: »

Everybody needs to be "encouraged" to save, not just the people on low incomes or in receipt of benefit.

I thought people on JobSeeker's allowance received the money to help get a job and live while doing so, if they have enough to save it needs to be cut!

Historical records present a pattern of members saving in small amounts, gradually accumulating to significant amounts over time

SuperFlyGuy

I never realised that money Savers were so greedy! This is an excellent piece of legislation which will allow workers on low income (yes there actually are hard working people who are on benefits who are not lazy leeches!) to maybe save a little. for example I put £20 into my companies credit union, I will now put this into a gateway account instead and it might make a slightly better Xmas one year. I would appreciate it if you would be less insulting with your remarks as not all people on benefits are spongers in fact only two of the required benefits is for those out of work! the rest are for workers or disabled people.

Blah99

SuperFlyGuy wrote: »

I never realised that money Savers were so greedy! This is an excellent piece of legislation which will allow workers on low income (yes there actually are hard working people who are on benefits who are not lazy leeches!) to maybe save a little. for example I put £20 into my companies credit union, I will now put this into a gateway account instead and it might make a slightly better Xmas one year. I would appreciate it if you would be less insulting with your remarks as not all people on benefits are spongers in fact only two of the required benefits is for those out of work! the rest are for workers or disabled people.

Can I ask you a straightforward question? You are on a low income, fair enough. However, why does that automatically entitle you to have the Government double your savings using the taxes paid by everyone else?

Let's put a hypothetical to you. Let's assume you earn £10k a year, and you can only afford to save £20 a month. You've said you deserve the benefit of a gateway account. Okay.

What about Bob down the street, who does the same job as you but earns £12k a year? Should he be allowed to access the gateway scheme too?

What if Bob earns £14k? Or £16k? Or £20k? Or £40k? What if Bob earns £100k a year but is saddled with massive debt because of a divorce, and despite his large salary he can only afford to put away £15 a month? What if we're talking about a nurse who has to live in central London to work in her hospital, and after rent finds she can barely live each month but still doesn't qualify for the Gateway because she earns £500 p.a. more than the qualifying limit?

Where do you draw that line, and why do you draw it there? Why do you believe a certain section of the population is totally deserving of the Government using tax revenues to 50% on the pound match their savings, but the rest of the population don't deserve the same treatment?

"Because they're low paid" isn't an answer, remember.

SuperFlyGuy

because a line has to be drawn, usually that of the poverty line. Someone who earns £100k a year should have married better! The whole point of this is that it helps to bottom of the financial food chain. there is a savings limit of £25 a month = After the two years £625 and the govt after the two years are up will add 50% we are not talking vast amounts of money, but its a lot to people in poverty. There is no way you can argue someone on £100k is in poverty, they may be living beyond there means that all.

Blah99

SuperFlyGuy wrote: »

because a line has to be drawn, usually that of the poverty line. Someone who earns £100k a year should have married better! The whole point of this is that it helps to bottom of the financial food chain. there is a savings limit of £25 a month = After the two years £625 and the govt after the two years are up will add 50% we are not talking vast amounts of money, but its a lot to people in poverty. There is no way you can argue someone on £100k is in poverty, they may be living beyond there means that all.

Sorry, but that's not an answer, it's a typical "bash the rich" response. Let me lay the figures out for you. First let's accept that my figures are estimates, bearing in mind the scheme hasn't been finalised yet. Anyway according to this document (Savings Gateway Impact Assessment)
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/budget2008/saving-gateway.pdf

there are around 8 million benefit claimants eligible for the scheme. Let's assume only 25% of them save your figure of £25 per month into the scheme, a total of £600 after 2 years. The Government then matches that with £300 of 50% on the pound.

Now look at the figures. 25% of 8 million people is 2 million, multiplied by £300, gives a grand total of £60,000,0000.

SIXTY MILLION POUNDS IF ONLY A QUARTER OF ELIGIBLE PEOPLE SAVE £25 A MONTH.

The previous take-up rate of similar schemes was much higher than 25%, and you say "we're not talking vast amounts of money"? Remember, the original £25 being saved has come from benefits in the first place, so the taxpayer is paying twice for this ridiculous policy.

You seized upon my example of a £100k salary as "not in poverty", and conveniently ignored the nurse that earns £500 a year too much to qualify.

Let me pose this question to you: if someone is on benefits, why should they be given extra money and rewarded for banking the money they receive? The welfare state is there as a safety net to help people survive, not to allow them to profit.

What people fail to understand is that this attitude of "tax the rich for our benefits, they can afford it" is self-defeating. Without the so-called rich paying taxes nobody at the bottom of the chain gets anything. Someone on £100k a year, who is not rich by any means, pays something like £30,000 a year in tax. They are the wealth generators and should not be punished for it.

1echidna

In all but exceptional cases someone on £100,000pa is much better off than someone on benefits or very low pay. SuperFlyGuy is right a line has to be drawn somewhere, but that does not negate the validity of the exercise of trying to target this measure on the poorest in society. The measure requires tax payers money so although it might be hard on the nurse (and it would need to be a pretty junior one) whose income is just above the cut off this does not destroy the validity of the exercise. Whilst some benefits are rightly available universally this particular measure if universal would be taken up more by the better off in society and would actually distribute wealth more to those least in need of it. Personally I don't wish to live in society where benefits are enough for bread and water and not much more. I agree we are quite a long way from that but most on benefits live frugally and a proportion live very frugally and manage to put a bit away for a special purchase or holiday. It seems a bit like reverse envy to begrudge a very small proportion of the total tax take to encourage a little bit of saving by the poorest in society. Taxing higher income people is not self defeating it goes someway, amongst other things, to creating a fairer society where accidents of the family one is born into or personal ability are not the be all and end all of ones financial circumstances.