Deposit for house has to be used before receiving any JSA?

BongoTheWhippet

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

For most people, becoming unemployed pretty well comes under the heading of "a rainy day" ! You seem to be trying to have it both ways.

Nope. Never said I was saving for a rainy day - I was saving to buy a property. I'm not trying to have it both ways - if the income-based JSA system was less morally questionable there would be a dispensation for people who don't own property to keep their savings in exactly the same way as there is a dispensation for property owners that they can keep their equity. Do you see it now?

It's not complex, it's just morally bankrupt, and its easy to see why the UK is drowning in debt (the system actually works against you if you're prudent) and why there are so many benefits frauds (the system is a fraud itself!).

onlyforboards_2

BongoTheWhippet wrote: »

Never said I was saving for a rainy day - I was saving to buy a property. I'm not trying to have it both ways - if the income-based JSA system was less morally questionable there would be a dispensation for people who don't own property to keep their savings in exactly the same way as there is a dispensation for property owners that they can keep their equity.

I have wondered about this sort of thing a lot myself.

storminbalder

BongoTheWhippet wrote: »

Nope. Never said I was saving for a rainy day - I was saving to buy a property. I'm not trying to have it both ways - if the income-based JSA system was less morally questionable there would be a dispensation for people who don't own property to keep their savings in exactly the same way as there is a dispensation for property owners that they can keep their equity. Do you see it now?

It's not complex, it's just morally bankrupt, and its easy to see why the UK is drowning in debt (the system actually works against you if you're prudent) and why there are so many benefits frauds (the system is a fraud itself!).

So in other words you want the tax payer to buy a house for you?

Oldernotwiser

BongoTheWhippet wrote: »

Nope. Never said I was saving for a rainy day - I was saving to buy a property. I'm not trying to have it both ways - if the income-based JSA system was less morally questionable there would be a dispensation for people who don't own property to keep their savings in exactly the same way as there is a dispensation for property owners that they can keep their equity. Do you see it now?

It's not complex, it's just morally bankrupt, and its easy to see why the UK is drowning in debt (the system actually works against you if you're prudent) and why there are so many benefits frauds (the system is a fraud itself!).

You're right, it's not complex. If you have substantial savings and you become unemployed then you have to use these savings to look after yourself rather than be kept by the taxpayer. You receive 6 months of contributions based JSA which aren't affected by savings, so it's not something that happens immediately and if you live with someone on a good salary, then you don't receive this either.

I'm happy for my taxes to pay for people who are badly off but I'm damned if I want them to go to someone with a fat bank balance or who's living in a household with an adequate income!

Perhaps you should look up the meaning of the phrase "means tested" in the dictionary, as you seem to have problems with the concept.

ceridwen

BongoTheWhippet wrote: »

That's what I'm going to claim - that money is from a house sale. No way I'm going to be subsidising reckless homeowners who have overstretched themselves like the JSA system wants me to.

errr.....I have the feeling that you would be stopped at the first hurdle on that one.....ie that you would be required to provide proof that the money was really from a house sale.

ceridwen

Hmmm....I see the point you are making Bongo about "no wonder we are drowning in debt". As a nation we are indeed heavily-indebted. Think the British are the nation with the highest personal debts in the world???? I know the system does militate against having any savings much....I've been scared to have any savings if I had the chance to - just in case I got made unemployed again. Hence I've spent money as fast as it came in - to make sure I was the one doing the spending of my own money (since I have always been on a low salary to date) - and I havent had savings available when needed for house repairs sometimes and ended up having to take out a loan.

Left to myself - without this incredibly low savings limit - I would have just saved all my spare money and would have had the money available when those house repairs came up and wouldnt have had to go into debt for them.

Its a !!!!-eyed way I've had to manage my finances sometimes and not the most financially "sensible" way - just in order to hang onto my own money.
(I'm not some wealthy person trying to do so - which I WOULD disagree with - either).

I repeat a point I made previously - "rainy days" are when one needs to draw on savings for things personal to yourself - like health care bills for instance - and savings are NOT there to be used to subsidise income (whether that income be salary or benefit). The only time one would use savings to subsidise an inadequate income would be when one has made a deliberate personal choice to swop to a lower-paid job or some retraining in order to have a more fulfilling job or one that would be a lot better paid in the future.

I do sometimes have the cynical thought that I guess it suits firms/the powers-that-be for the average low-paid person in the street to have to spend their money as soon as they get it (in order to hang onto it themselves IYSWIM) - as then there is an endless round of consumer spending/"growth"/etc. Thank goodness I'm now in my 50s and can say "I dont WANT to have to keep on spending my money/I dont WANT any more consumer goodies - and now I know I wont ever be on benefit again I can save at last....so.....(***) and savings here I come".

barnaby-bear

BongoTheWhippet wrote: »

Hi,

Recently made redundant and got some savings which we've put aside for the deposit on a house as first time buyers.

Filling in the contribution-based JSA claim form, the form asked if I'd got savings or property other than your place of residence. If I understand it correctly, if I had mortgaged myself up to the hilt with a barely affordable mortgage I'd have been able to stay in the property and get contribution-based JSA on top of the equity I had, but because we've been prudent and rented and built up a deposit, we have to use that to live before I can claim any benefits?

If so, this seems wrong on any number of levels. Can anyone explain?

Thanks

I know it seems unfair - most people I know with mortgages offset their savings so they don't count as savings in this type of event.

Oldernotwiser

barnaby-bear wrote: »

I know it seems unfair - most people I know with mortgages offset their savings so they don't count as savings in this type of event.

Could you clarify this, please, for others on the board.

Oldernotwiser

ceridwen wrote: »

Left to myself - without this incredibly low savings limit - I would have just saved all my spare money and would have had the money available when those house repairs came up and wouldnt have had to go into debt for them.

I don't think that many people would count £6,000 as "incredibly low"; if you had this much behind you you'd be able to cover quite a lot of house repairs without borrowing.

seven-day-weekend

If we lived in the UK we would not qualify for any means-tested benefits as we are over the savings limit.

However, we have only a very small income.

In spite of this, I would not expect to claim any MEANS-tested benefits when we have the MEANS! That is what means-testing is about, so that people without the MEANS (i.e. people who don't have enough money)get them!

Some benefits are not means-tested and if you fulfilled the criteria for receiving those, you would ger them even if you were a millionaire.