Univeral Credit & Child Savings Accounts

LunaLady

Why should you receive benefits if you have enough money that you are able to save £26k?

Benefits are meant as a safety net, not something to line your nest with.

plum2002

think of it this way, due to receiving tax credits up to now you've managed to save money that otherwise you wouldn't have. Maybe you won't be able to save now and gradually your savings may be eroded, but at least you have them as a fall back, many won't as they will not have had the years of tax credits you have enjoyed.

I do foresee a lot more unemployment in the near future, employers have effectively been subsidised by tax credits, lots of low salary jobs simply cannot meet the cost of living, employers are going to have to put up salaries and to meet those costs will be looking to rationalise their workforce. In work benefits or out of work benefits, either way I don't see the welfare bill getting smaller.

Pedent

LunaLady wrote: »

Why should you receive benefits if you have enough money that you are able to save £26k?

Because others get benefits who also had enough money to save £26k but chose not to. It's fair to treat these people equally.

plum2002

Pedent wrote: »

Because others get benefits who also had enough money to save £26k but chose not to. It's fair to treat these people equally.

This is true, we don't know how long it's taken to save that money or how they saved it. They may not have taken a holiday in years, lived a very frugal life. Another family might have had regular holidays and spent all their income. The second family would still get UC the first not, is it still fair that the first doesn't?

skintandscared_2

Pedent wrote: »

Because others get benefits who also had enough money to save £26k but chose not to. It's fair to treat these people equally.

I don't think I've ever read anything quite so ridiculous. Benefits are there for those people who can't feed/clothe/house themselves without it. It is not supposed to be a bounty of funds that enable someone to save thousands.

I have a full time job and support someone who is only able to work sporadically, but we get no benefits whatsoever. I can't afford to save at all. I think this month my account went down to £4.21 just before I got paid. What if I don't think it's fair that I can't save £26k by having someone else cover some of my bills for me, eh?!

plum2002

skintandscared wrote: »

I don't think I've ever read anything quite so ridiculous. Benefits are there for those people who can't feed/clothe/house themselves without it. It is not supposed to be a bounty of funds that enable someone to save thousands.

I have a full time job and support someone who is only able to work sporadically, but we get no benefits whatsoever. I can't afford to save at all. I think this month my account went down to £4.21 just before I got paid. What if I don't think it's fair that I can't save £26k by having someone else cover some of my bills for me, eh?!

If the tax credits are based on their earnings they have (thus far) done nothing wrong, they have claimed monies they are entitled to. Now, with UC coming in, they will not be entitled due to the fact that they have been, to quote Gordon "prudent'. Another family with exactly the same earnings will still get the money, fair?

skintandscared_2

plum2002 wrote: »

If the tax credits are based on their earnings they have (thus far) done nothing wrong, they have claimed monies they are entitled to. Now, with UC coming in, they will not be entitled due to the fact that they have been, to quote Gordon "prudent'. Another family with exactly the same earnings will still get the money, fair?

I do understand what you are saying. But where do you draw the line? Benefits are for people who need them to live. Someone with £26k in savings doesn't need that kind of assistance. Do you honestly think its fair that I should subsidise someone with £26k in savings when I literally can't even afford to save £2.60?

plum2002

skintandscared wrote: »

I do understand what you are saying. But where do you draw the line? Benefits are for people who need them to live. Someone with £26k in savings doesn't need that kind of assistance. Do you honestly think its fair that I should subsidise someone with £26k in savings when I literally can't even afford to save £2.60?

No, I don't think it's fair to you, at all (or me for that matter), but I can understand that suddenly having 'income' removed is upsetting, and the fact that they saved yet others with the same income didn't and will still get UC is also unfair. they feel they are being penalised for being careful, all I am saying is that I understand that and don't think they should be shot down on here for exploring their options. Fine to tell them, 'no, what you are proposing is not right' Not OK to tick them off for receiving benefits that up to now they have been entitled to, they didn't make the policy and they (I hope) received the monies in good faith having fulfilled the current criteria.

Also, bear in mind most on tax credits don't think of themselves as benefit scroungers, they are working in low paid jobs and receiving top up credits. It was sold to the electorate as a helping hand.

skintandscared_2

plum2002 wrote: »

No, I don't think it's fair to you, at all (or me for that matter), but I can understand that suddenly having 'income' removed is upsetting, and the fact that they saved yet others with the same income didn't and will still get UC is also unfair. they feel they are being penalised for being careful, all I am saying is that I understand that and don't think they should be shot down on here for exploring their options. Fine to tell them, 'no, what you are proposing is not right' Not OK to tick them off for receiving benefits that up to now they have been entitled to, they didn't make the policy and they (I hope) received the monies in good faith having fulfilled the current criteria.

Also, bear in mind most on tax credits don't think of themselves as benefit scroungers, they are working in low paid jobs and receiving top up credits. It was sold to the electorate as a helping hand.

To be fair, I've never called benefit claimers scroungers and I think the top-ups are essential for lower paid families. What I'm saying is that when UC is introduced there needs to be a line drawn and everyone treated the same from then on. I'm sorry, but if someone who receives benefits has been able to save £26k, that tells me that they are receiving too much and they don't need that assistance. They should not be in a better position than people who don't claim benefits and there are lots of us in full time employment who don't have flash cars or a holiday every year (I know I don't!) Benefits should not be paid to the extent that they subsidise such extravagances - they are there for essentials.

plum2002

skintandscared wrote: »

To be fair, I've never called benefit claimers scroungers and I think the top-ups are essential for lower paid families. What I'm saying is that when UC is introduced there needs to be a line drawn and everyone treated the same from then on. I'm sorry, but if someone who receives benefits has been able to save £26k, that tells me that they are receiving too much and they don't need that assistance. They should not be in a better position than people who don't claim benefits and there are lots of us in full time employment who don't have flash cars or a holiday every year (I know I don't!) Benefits should not be paid to the extent that they subsidise such extravagances - they are there for essentials.

I honestly wasn't accusing you of calling anyone a scrounger, it was a general comment and I'm sorry if it caused you offense.

I do see your point, I do think mine is valid too, but I'm going to leave it there as I don't think it's going anywhere