Why no more than £16000 in savings?

hebron

And there's the one's who put all their cash in a large expensive house but have under £16000 cash and so get benefits. There money is in bricks and mortar and they still get benefits.

immoral_angeluk

It's with regard to means teated benefits.
If you have between 6 and 16k they will take a 'tariff income' (at either £1 for every £250 or £500 depending on the benefit) and add it to your normal income when calculating your benefits. If you have over 16k you become ineligible for means tested benefits unless you have passported entitlement from another benefit, for example if you get pension guarantee credit you would get full housing benefit/council tax benefit which is usually means tested and subject to the 16k rule.

mjm3346

I believe 16k is the cut off point where income support stops although it tapers down to a stop so it is not like stamp duty in that respect.
It is not so much about the loss of the value of the benefit but the things like free sight tests, free prescriptions etc you can get while on income support.

CLAPTON

reck_uk wrote: »

I’ve seen this mentioned a few times on this forum, you should never have more than £16000 in your savings account. What’s the reasoning for this?

Is it something to do with the benefits you would receive if you became unemployed? If so surely the benefit is tied to how much you have in savings, so it wouldn’t just be <£16000 you get full benefit >£16000 you get none. If its tied to how much you have in savings surely there wouldn’t be hardly any difference between say someone who had £15000 and someone who £16000 in savings.

the assumption is that one will spend some of the money so when it falls to less than 16k and you can then claim benefit.

all benefits systems have anomolies; it is considered that there has to be a cut off somewhere otherwise the entire nation would claim the benefit (child allowance excepted.)

scott_lithgows

immoral_angeluk wrote: »

It's with regard to means teated benefits.
If you have between 6 and 16k they will take a 'tariff income' (at either £1 for every £250 or £500 depending on the benefit) and add it to your normal income when calculating your benefits. If you have over 16k you become ineligible for means tested benefits unless you have passported entitlement from another benefit, for example if you get pension guarantee credit you would get full housing benefit/council tax benefit which is usually means tested and subject to the 16k rule.

I,m getting about 5k in july,this will take me over 6k in the bank.I,m therefore rattling up a bit of debt on a 0% purchase credit card which I will pay off when the cash comes through.Not taking any risks with the child tax credits !

greenface

immoral_angeluk wrote: »

It's with regard to means teated benefits.
If you have between 6 and 16k they will take a 'tariff income' (at either £1 for every £250 or £500 depending on the benefit) and add it to your normal income when calculating your benefits. If you have over 16k you become ineligible for means tested benefits unless you have passported entitlement from another benefit, for example if you get pension guarantee credit you would get full housing benefit/council tax benefit which is usually means tested and subject to the 16k rule.

Heres you answer followed by mjms good post The 6k to 16k mark will only affect benefit thats means tested too other money can still be paid DLA and Carers allowance etc.
BTW i went into the C.A.B for some advice on carers allowance and as i owned my house(had over 100k equity in it) they couldnt give me free information.

reck_uk

ses6jwg wrote: »

Why should you get benefits when you have the equivlant of some people's annual salaries sat in your bank, to be fair?

I don't understand this point of view. My brother earns a similar salary to me but the way he spends his money is completely different. He does not save anything, as soon as he has some money he has to spend it, flat screen tv's, game consoles, cars, nice holidays etc. I'm a saver, I go without a lot of nice things in life but over the years I've saved some money in case of emergency, for instance if I need medical help etc.

Now lets assume we both lost our jobs at the same time and were unemployed for a long time. He would have no savings at all and would get benefits straight away to help him pay his bills. As i've saved all my life and gone without i'm expected to use all that money i;ve put aside to pay my bills, while the tax payer would pay my brothers.

So he'll be sat at home in front of his nice flat panel tv, playing on his games console while his bills get paid, while each month i'll be seeing my hard earned savings slowly disappear.

Why should someone who is sensible with their money and doesn't squander it away be punished and have their life savings slowly taken away and get no help from the government even though we both pay the same amount of tax.

Maybe it's wise not to save to much money and instead spend it, maybe an extension to the house or a decent car. At least this way no one can take it away like they can if you leave it in the bank.

Am I alone in this viewpoint?

greenface

Im not your brother am i ??
an extension is a good idea then I (as your brother have somwhere to stay after a night on the town)

paulw98

reck_uk - my point exactly!

Its so unfair

john_s_2

reck_uk wrote: »

Why should someone who is sensible with their money and doesn't squander it away be punished and have their life savings slowly taken away and get no help from the government even though we both pay the same amount of tax.

Like me, you're a saver. Like me, you know that should you ever require means-tested benefits you won't be able to get them until you've reduced your savings to below 16k (or thereabouts). And at a reasonable rate too, because if the social decide you've "deprived yourself of capital" (in order to become entitled) then you'll be treated it as still possessing it.

Like me, no one has forced you to be a saver. The effects on means-tested benefits are one of the many factors that should be weighed up before amassing a five figure sum in the bank.

C'est la vie.