Partners and savings

nannytone_2

i understand totally what youre saying about savings. i have an aunt and uncle that never had childre. saved slavishly all their working lives. never had fancy holidays or excessive treats. now theyre in the position that money theyd put aside for 'treats' now has to be used for day to day living.
noe i'll use my own situation as an example.
my husband works full time, and he has 2 children from a previous marriage that he supports (rightly so)
i am unable to work as i have a disability that makes it impossible to gain employment.
we have no savings. not because of a lavish lifestyle but because we have responsibilities.
you have 30 k ( no doubt hard earned) in savings. but youd like my husbands taxes to allow you to live and still keep tour savings.
doesnt sound quite so reasonable now does it?

tazwhoever

Reading the posts - I guess the the main thing is if you can secure employment with high salary to pay mortgage, council tax, and living then it's fine. If you are earning just enough to pay rent, council tax, living, then don't save - and this will be unfair for the taxpayers.

OP - I don't think there are houses for £30K...

tamias

Thanks, nannytone. Whlist I'd argue there are small differences in that it's actually my *own* taxes (I worked before starting my PhD) that I'd like to be used, and that's it's not to help me directly but my girlfriend (as we don't share bank accounts and are financially independent), I do see what you're saying

But it looks like anything in terms of practical advice has already been given, so thanks again to everyone, and I guess it just leaves me to lament that I ever bothered to save, really!

tamias

tazwhoever wrote: »

Reading the posts - I guess the the main thing is if you can secure employment with high salary to pay mortgage, council tax, and living then it's fine. If you are earning just enough to pay rent, council tax, living, then don't save - and this will be unfair for the taxpayers.

OP - I don't think there are houses for £30K...

Seems to sum it up quite well, thanks tazwhoever!

Oh and I know there are no £30k houses, but I was saying I could put it down as a deposit and take on a mortgage which we can't afford (just as we can't afford the current rent), and then we'd be eligible for help with paying the mortgage, income support, etc. Madness.

nannytone_2

its not your taxes that would pay you benefit! the tax you paid was spent long ago!
thats what gets me when people say 'i paid my taxes'
yes you did and the people in need were no doubt very grateful.
but taxes arent like a bank account, that build up for when you need help.

tamias

nannytone wrote: »

its not your taxes that would pay you benefit! the tax you paid was spent long ago!
thats what gets me when people say 'i paid my taxes'
yes you did and the people in need were no doubt very grateful.
but taxes arent like a bank account, that build up for when you need help.

No, I'm well aware of that! It was just a counter to your suggestion that I would be using your husband's taxes instead; you're quite right, it's *no-one's* individual taxes which would be used. My point was that I have also paid tax, and I'm not trying to claim anything back, just to get some help for my girlfriend.

But we're rather off topic now.

ceridwen

I think there might possibly be some sort of leeway time that one is allowed to hold onto "own a house" money for without it being counted???

You do need to check that.

My thinking is that you might possibly have enough to buy a cheap mobile home now - and then you wouldnt have those savings any more and you WOULD have a home of your own.

Of course this will very much depend on how cheap an area you are living in.

MY other thought is whether you could pay back your student debt totally now from those savings - bang would go your house money or at least a substantial part of it - but you would not have such a large amount of student debt to pay off in the future - thus making it easier for you to save up again for a house.

The thing to bear in mind is that your girlfriend isnt unemployed at present - and you dont know whether she will actually become so. For all you - or anyone else knows - she might walk straight out of that temp. job into a permanent job. After all - this is exactly what would happen in "normal economic times" - ie the walking straight into another job the following week.

It is such a stupid system - that one is only allowed a certain amount of savings and that isnt very high (at £6,000) before one starts getting means-tested out of them if unemployment hits. Hence my savings will be beneath £5,000 until such time as I know I couldnt possibly become unemployed ever again. I resent having to spend money I would rather save - as thats the only way I can be sure I've "kept it" IYSWIM - but, as its the only way to deal with the present rule and make sure that I'm not penalised for having much in the way of savings - then I keep on spending:mad:

Indie_Kid

ceridwen wrote: »

MY other thought is whether you could pay back your student debt totally now from those savings - bang would go your house money or at least a substantial part of it - but you would not have such a large amount of student debt to pay off in the future - thus making it easier for you to save up again for a house.

What's the point? The student loan is paid off when someone earns over 15k pa.

tamias

Thanks ceridwen, I agree completely with your analysis. Admittedly buying a mobile home wouldn't really be a practical or necessarily sensible solution to our problem, but the fact that it would indeed solve the problem is a symptom of the bizarre way the benefits system is set up!

And you're quite right, optimistically she may indeed get another job straight after the current temp contract and there won't be any problems at all. But we've been disappointed enough times in the last year for me to want to look into all our options, hence this thread!

viktory

tamias wrote: »

Clearly shouldn't have bothered saving at all

This attitude really annoys me. Why do so many think that if they have been prudent and saved they should be allowed to keep their savings and leech off the taxpayer instead?