Wtc and savings

durley

As it is now if you claim WTC only the interest on savings is taken into account, under the new universal credit they are going to cap your savings and if u have over a certain amount you won't be able to claim tax credits. This is so wrong because you are actually working when you claim WTC so you should be able to save.

innovate

No, it is not wrong at all that everyone is expected to, firstly, support themselves from the money they have earned.

What is wrong is if people expect that can use subsidies from other working people (i.e. tax payers who fund the benefits budgets) in order to build up their savings.

durley

WTC is not like income support where you are not working, to claim WTC you have to be working, so is u can manage to save why shouldn't you be able to?

evenasus

It's one thing to save your own earned money - another to expect to save money paid out from government handouts.

markwilkinson

Why should it be right that you can use tax payers money to save?

durley

I have ben a foster carer for over 30 yrs, I have worked 24/7.
Foster carer allowance is classed as nil for working tax credit so I am able to claim quite legally. I have managed to save over the last 30 years because I devoted my life to this job,I don't go out often because I can't. I do not think I shld be penalized because of this.

innovate

Nobody doubts that you have been working hard - though working 24/7 is bad for you, you need a break at times else you get stressed out.

You are not getting penalized for anything - - quite the contrary. If anyone has been penalized, it's those taxpayers whose money funded your savings account.

fiesta04

So does this also mean people should not save Child Allowance as this also comes from taxpayers?

F4

innovate

fiesta04 wrote: »

So does this also mean people should not save Child Allowance as this also comes from taxpayers?

Child benefit is - as the name implies - for the benefit of a child. If parents chose to save the money e.g. for their children's education, they should be free to do so.

However, all benefits should be means tested IMO, as long as the cost of means testing is lower than the potential savings for the tax payer. Therefore, people with significant existing savings and/or above a certain income shouldn't be entitled to the same benefits as those with with no, or low, savings, and no/low incomes.

We are at risk now to go beyond the scope of the Savings/Investment board, btw.