Partners and savings

tomitma

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...

There are houses in the South Wales Valleys, only last night we saw an ad for a 3 bedroom semi detached house 28,000.

tamias

Fair points, and I appreciate that there are still positives in my situation, there are always others worse off or who have been screwed over far worse by the system, etc.

But to take it back to my initial posting, I'm just surprised that for a person who would normally be entitled to certain benefits to help her get through a difficult time, the simple fact that she's in a relationship with someone who has savings but also no substantial income, means that she loses all of her entitlement to any help and has to rely on someone who can't sustainably support her. I'm also surprised that my status as a full-time student (normally council tax-exempt, etc) doesn't seem to have any bearing on the fact that I then prevent her from claiming.

Btw I didn't call the benefit system "crap" at any point (that was someone else) so please don't attribute that to me. I do, however, think that the rules on savings seem to go against all principles of sanity. The message seems to be: live frugally and save for the future, and when times are hard you'll have to go it alone; or spend everything you earn on trivialities, and when times are hard the state will still help you out. But that's a political/philosophical discussion I suspect is not relevant to this forum.

Indie_Kid

But you'd have income from your savings.

Breast_Cancer_Survivor

tamias wrote: »

Fair points, and I appreciate that there are still positives in my situation, there are always others worse off or who have been screwed over far worse by the system, etc.

But to take it back to my initial posting, I'm just surprised that for a person who would normally be entitled to certain benefits to help her get through a difficult time, the simple fact that she's in a relationship with someone who has savings but also no substantial income, means that she loses all of her entitlement to any help and has to rely on someone who can't sustainably support her. I'm also surprised that my status as a full-time student (normally council tax-exempt, etc) doesn't seem to have any bearing on the fact that I then prevent her from claiming.

Btw I didn't call the benefit system "crap" at any point (that was someone else) so please don't attribute that to me. I do, however, think that the rules on savings seem to go against all principles of sanity. The message seems to be: live frugally and save for the future, and when times are hard you'll have to go it alone; or spend everything you earn on trivialities, and when times are hard the state will still help you out. But that's a political/philosophical discussion I suspect is not relevant to this forum.

I suppose they have to draw a line somewhere or else everyone would be entitled to benefits. :eek:

Unfortunately your well over the line (with the 30k savings).

Oldernotwiser

tamias wrote: »

Btw I didn't call the benefit system "crap" at any point (that was someone else) so please don't attribute that to me. I do, however, think that the rules on savings seem to go against all principles of sanity. The message seems to be: live frugally and save for the future, and when times are hard you'll have to go it alone; or spend everything you earn on trivialities, and when times are hard the state will still help you out. But that's a political/philosophical discussion I suspect is not relevant to this forum.

I apologise for attributing that comment incorrectly, I was reading too quickly.

On the general subject of saving though, surely people save to cover themselves for unexpected eventualities or we wouldn't have the concept of "saving for a rainy day"? I can never understand why people begrudge spending their savings when the eventuality happens.

ceridwen

tamias wrote: »

Fair points, and I appreciate that there are still positives in my situation, there are always others worse off or who have been screwed over far worse by the system, etc.

But to take it back to my initial posting, I'm just surprised that for a person who would normally be entitled to certain benefits to help her get through a difficult time, the simple fact that she's in a relationship with someone who has savings but also no substantial income, means that she loses all of her entitlement to any help and has to rely on someone who can't sustainably support her. I'm also surprised that my status as a full-time student (normally council tax-exempt, etc) doesn't seem to have any bearing on the fact that I then prevent her from claiming.

Btw I didn't call the benefit system "crap" at any point (that was someone else) so please don't attribute that to me. I do, however, think that the rules on savings seem to go against all principles of sanity. The message seems to be: live frugally and save for the future, and when times are hard you'll have to go it alone; or spend everything you earn on trivialities, and when times are hard the state will still help you out. But that's a political/philosophical discussion I suspect is not relevant to this forum.

Actually - i think the message is SPEND SPEND SPEND. That seems to be what the Government wants us to do from what I can see - with being penalised for having saved money rather than spent it if one comes to claim benefit on the one hand. On the other hand - the rate of interest on savings is so low as to be virtually non-existent as we know and its basically impossible not to have savings eaten away by inflation gradually.

So - I honestly really DO think that the Government is determined to make us spend all our money as soon as we get it. I suppose the reasons why are:

- If people are only allowed a tiny amount to fall back on then they are "encouraged" to take whatever jobs are going (no matter how low the pay or how bad the conditions). You would have thought they would have realised that that strategy has substantially failed by now.......:cool:

- If people have to carry on spending in order to "safeguard" their money IYSWIM - then the "wheels of commerce keep turning" and they can keep on repeating the mantra "Growth is good" (though we all know - if we have any sense - that that aint the case and anyway some of us dont want to be steadily using more and more of the world's resources all the time...).

I've found that the best way to deal with the pressure to spend personally is:

- keep JUST enough savings to conform to the capital limit and minimise my loss of capital to inflation

- spend to save (ie buy better-quality, longer-lasting products and things that will save me money in the long-term)

- spend on whatever services I want (little - if any - use of the worlds resources there:))

- if all else fails - then I'll just GIVE the money away (but at least I will be the one who has chosen who gets it....:D)

ceridwen

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I apologise for attributing that comment incorrectly, I was reading too quickly.

On the general subject of saving though, surely people save to cover themselves for unexpected eventualities or we wouldn't have the concept of "saving for a rainy day"? I can never understand why people begrudge spending their savings when the eventuality happens.

This ground has been gone over again and again......

We save for a rainy day - like money needing spending on children, health, house repairs, car repairs.

We don't save in order to have money available that the Government can use to means-test us out of benefits that we might become eligible for. If we all believed we might be thrown out of work and onto benefits any minute - then no-one would be prepared to save very much (if anything) until they were on a pension (and - even then - they wouldnt save much unless their pension was too high to be due for anything anyway).

That is exactly the premise I personally work on - I want to save, I intend to save - but am being prevented from doing so whilst I still need a job. Once I am retired - then my pension will be too high for me to qualify for any help anyway (but only just....:() - so, at that point, I will start saving any spare money I have in case of a rainy day (provided I can find an adequate interest rate to at least protect it from inflation). If it all ended up getting left to charity - thats not a problem to me - as it will have served its main purpose (ie making sure I am financially secure whilst alive).

Oldernotwiser

ceridwen wrote: »

This ground has been gone over again and again......

We save for a rainy day - like money needing spending on children, health, house repairs, car repairs.

We don't save in order to have money available that the Government can use to means-test us out of benefits that we might become eligible for. If we all believed we might be thrown out of work and onto benefits any minute - then no-one would be prepared to save very much (if anything) until they were on a pension (and - even then - they wouldnt save much unless their pension was too high to be due for anything anyway)..

This is about on a par with your other advice on here.

If you cannot see that "saving for a rainy day" includes saving for a period of unemployment (longer than 6 months) or ill health, then I'm not going to try to convince you.

Why anybody should choose to jump through government hoops when they could be independent and spend their own money just beggars belief and simply indicates a degree of brainwashing and welfare state dependency that I cannot understand.

One of the reasons we're having to put up with a draconian level of cuts is attitudes like yours, which have encouraged people to see benefits as the first, rather than the last, port of call in times of trouble.

Indie_Kid

If you just spend, spend, spend, you might still be treated as having the capital.

andyandflo

tamias wrote: »

Hi all,

This is my first time posting so please be gentle. I was wondering if anyone could help unofficially advise me regarding my girlfriend's and my financial situation wrt claiming benefits.

We've been living at my girlfriend's dad's for the last year to try to save money as she's just finished a 1-year college course and is now unable to find long-term work. A recent mouse infestation and burglary, as well as the desire to have our own space, has prompted us to move out to private rented accommodation.

The statistics:

Her - 25, currently in week 2 of 6 weeks of temp work but with nothing lined up afterwards, and has next to no savings.

Me - 25, currently doing a full-time PhD for which I recieve a tax-free bursary (enough for me to live on, but not for both of us), I also earn about £3k per year from part-time jobs. I've saved all my life (gone without the nicer things etc) to try to raise a deposit for a future house purchase which currently stands at around £30k, held in an ISA and a bank bond, of which around a third is un-repaid student debt.

As I understand it, if my girlfriend was on her own she'd be able to claim for Working Tax Credit / Job Seeker's (after her 6 week term ends), Council Tax Benefit, and Housing Benefit towards her half of the rent. I'd imagine we'd not have to pay council tax either way, as full-time students are exempt and she's on a low/soon to be zero wage. But what about her WTC/JSA and Housing Benefit? How much does my situation affect her ability to claim *for herself* (note I'm not interested in trying to claim anything for myself)?

One way of reading the forms, which worries me, is that as we qualify as "co-habiting partners" and I personally have >£16k in savings, I'm expected to blow it all on helping us to survive until I have so little left in savings that we qualify for the above mentioned benefits. Surely that's not right? Especially as, if I bought a house (somehow) with those savings and it became my main residence, they seem not to count that as capital any longer!

Thanks for any advice you can give me.

Mark

Hi, I have been reading this thread with great interest. I honestly feel for you.
The whole scenario of how means tested benefits are calculated is a complete mess.
There are so many situations that prejudice anyone who has the good sense to save.
Take Pension Credit for example. A couple are guaranteed £202.40pw. The Old age pension between them is normally £156.15pw if the wife does not have her own pension rights. So there is a top up £46.25. Now take a couple that have £50,000 in savings, they would earn about £47pw in interest. They would not get the top up. Who is right? Those that do not save should be penalised not those that do!!

What seems to be the case is that if you save and do without many things, you are no better off than somebody that spends, spends, spends, on foreign holidays, cars, clothes etc etc, over their lifetime. Surely those that have saved hard and done without should have that money 'ring fenced' and ignored for benefit purposes. Otherwise what is the point?

In saving for a home, you are doing the right thing. But the system is that if you didn't and spent it as it comes in, you would have the pleasure of spending the money and then not lose out when claiming. The way you have done it is that you are then expected to use it first to support yourself. Totally unfair!

Please just ignore some on this forum, they seem to delight in pointing out that it is better not to save and have a damn good life instead.