Universal Credit 16k+ savings transistional protection?

tinkledom

SkyeKnight wrote: »

They didn't say they saved £16k a year - they said they had savings of over £16k. On an income of £26k you could afford to save a couple of grand a year and in eight years you would be over the savings limit.

But the point that I was making was that this ability to save has been born out of the fact that they have received approx. £11000 of benefits on top of their income.
So in reality the savings actually represent the amount of benefit that was not needed to live on. As I suggested, they are probably getting too much in benefits if they can save some of it.

SkyeKnight

tinkledom wrote: »

But the point that I was making was that this ability to save has been born out of the fact that they have received approx. £11000 of benefits on top of their income.
So in reality the savings actually represent the amount of benefit that was not needed to live on. As I suggested, they are probably getting too much in benefits if they can save some of it.

But they are both working - so they are going to get more than the minimum to live on - that's what you get if you aren't working.

If they were earning £0k a year they should have £0k left over to save - since this family are earning £15k a year it seem reasonable that they should have £2k left over to save. Or would you take that £2k a year away and make them live on the same money as the unemployed family - where is the incentive to work?

nannytone_2

who said they have saved 16k in ONE year?

they may have been putting money away for years and years to get that amount!

i save £10 a week for my 'emergency fund' for if my oven/fridge/washer should break down.
i have about £300 in it at the moment..
but i didnt save that in 1 week

tinkledom

SkyeKnight wrote: »

But they are both working - so they are going to get more than the minimum to live on - that's what you get if you aren't working.

If they were earning £0k a year they should have £0k left over to save - since this family are earning £15k a year it seem reasonable that they should have £2k left over to save. Or would you take that £2k a year away and make them live on the same money as the unemployed family - where is the incentive to work?

But then where is the fairness between the OP who works and is able to save whatever and others that are either too sick or severely disabled to work, or someone that wants to work but cannot find a job?


Seems that you condone the fact that there are two classes of people in this country, those that are lucky that they are fit, healthy and have a job and those through no fault of their own cannot work/cannot find a job and have to rely on welfare hand-outs and be stigmatised at the same time.


Caring society??

nannytone_2

welfae payments like you and your wife get you mean?
theyd be jumping for hoy at the nearly £600 a week that you claim to receive!

many many disabled/sick people get nowhere near that amount before you start saying it is because you are disabled.

do you feel badly knowing there are disabled people far worse off than you or do you just keep your hand out?

SkyeKnight

tinkledom wrote: »

But then where is the fairness between the OP who works and is able to save whatever and others that are either too sick or severely disabled to work, or someone that wants to work but cannot find a job?


Seems that you condone the fact that there are two classes of people in this country, those that are lucky that they are fit, healthy and have a job and those through no fault of their own cannot work/cannot find a job and have to rely on welfare hand-outs and be stigmatised at the same time.


Caring society??

Obviously being too disabled to get a job is different - hence why, in general, they get more money than average unemployment. And in the cases where they don't - they should.

However, someone who wants to work but cannot find a job should definitely get less than someone working. They should get enough to live on (and I don't perceive that as uncaring), but surely no-one would think it was a good idea to pay employed and unemployed the same money? That would be insanity!

zagfles

cattermole wrote: »

I don't know which is worse a Labour government or a Tory one that is about to stop everyone from campaigning in the run up to a general election.

Really? So can I call the police and get any candidate who knocks on my door arrested can I? I'll try it and let you know...

zagfles

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Except the big difference will be the Universal Credit Conditions. Fail to meet your income requirement and you will be treated the same as job seekers, if you want benefits.

Yes. But the point is that unlike WTC, where you have to actually work to get it, with UC you only need to be seeking work, if you're below the minimum income requirement.

tinkledom

nannytone wrote: »

welfae payments like you and your wife get you mean?
theyd be jumping for hoy at the nearly £600 a week that you claim to receive!

many many disabled/sick people get nowhere near that amount before you start saying it is because you are disabled.

do you feel badly knowing there are disabled people far worse off than you or do you just keep your hand out?

That doesn't actually answer my question or the point I raised.


You seem to be joining the happy band that is quite content to insult another poster instead of dealing with the matter in hand.


Please keep within the rules of this site, else the matter will be reported.

cbrown372

tinkledom wrote: »

To be honest I don't know many that don't cream the system whether they work or not.


The system is there to be creamed - there is nothing illegal actually in maximising the income they work for or the benefits that they are entitled to claim.

Don't you cream what you can get out of the system using legal methods, be it DWP benefits. HMRC benefits, Social Services Benefits or even your local council?
Unfortunately with the benefit system you do have to know how each benefit may inter react with another, and which benefits open the best doors. According to some of your posts in the past you are doing quite nicely out of the various claims you have made.
and certainly not behind the door when there is something on offer as an extra.

tinkledom wrote: »

That doesn't actually answer my question or the point I raised.


You seem to be joining the happy band that is quite content to insult another poster instead of dealing with the matter in hand.


Please keep within the rules of this site, else the matter will be reported.

You seem to be happy to be offensive in your posts to the user, posts reported and perhaps you should read this thread regarding the rules of the site.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/365935