Universal Credit 16k+ savings transistional protection?

tinkledom

SkyeKnight wrote: »

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.
!

To be honest those that are sick/disabled and those that are simply 'unemployed' receive the same level of welfare support in the main.


The only difference is that the disabled (not the sick) are able to claim an additional welfare benefit that is based on the level of disability (needs that they have). Such a payment in the main, goes no where in meeting the extra costs that a disabled person has to pay for. I would also mention that this same benefit is also claimed by people who are in full time employment as well!


So to put it bluntly, all classes of claimants are paid an amount of similar money that just about keeps them alive only if they have excellent budgeting skills.


Maybe those that are sick and disabled should in fact be receiving welfare payments equal to what they would or could have earned if they hadn't been sick or disabled.


Now that would be novel and certain to cause an outcry by the unemployed as well as those that go to work - "why should a disabled skiver be getting the same that I get and I work 40 hours a week for my money!!"

DevilsAdvocate1

cattermole wrote: »

Would it be possible to have a mortgage and manage to pay it on £15,000 a year with 2 adults and 2 children? Unless its a very small one.

OP yes miffed I'm sure. You will need a pension. 16k towards one is not that much and ISA's don't give very good interest rates.

My best friend and her husband managed. They were on less than that and had a baby and toddler (around £12K each) when they bought their house. They both work part time. Not only that, they've managed to pay it off. But they live very frugally.

evenasus

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.

Excuse me?

tinkledom wrote: »

Hi, My wife is 69 and receives her state pension, and I am due mine in June when I attain 65. She receives max Attendance Allowance and I receive max mobility and mid care of DLA. We both claim Carers Allowance for each other.
We receive a top up of Guaranteed Pension credit of £116.32 a week which takes our combined income from all sources up to approx. £588 a week excluding Council tax Benefit.

What level of mortgage do you think we could get based on that income? And at what rate of interest is it likely to be?

We are looking at a LTV of about 40% based on a purchase price of £400,000 (looking to borrow £160,000). We have equity in our current home (£100,000) and a cash deposit of an additional £140,000.

Good credit record, with about £5000 outstanding over 2 credit cards that can be paid off if need be. We currently save approx. £400 a month out of our income which we give to our daughters'. This could be stopped making additional monies available.

nannytone_2

so are you back to just the 2 daughters now as well?
/B]

bloolagoon

DevilsAdvocate1 wrote: »

My best friend and her husband managed. They were on less than that and had a baby and toddler (around £12K each) when they bought their house. They both work part time. Not only that, they've managed to pay it off. But they live very frugally.

Is that because of tax credits? Ie their income included benefits that allowed it?

I suppose it depends where you live too, I couldn't afford a 1 bed flat now we have a lovely home with spare income.

On £24,000 even at 4x salary it wouldn't buy much in many areas.

nannytone_2

you could definately get a 2 bed house with a garden here for that amount, possibly even a 3 bed.

my PA and her boyfriend have just bought a 3 bed detatched with a garage for £108k

BigAunty

nannytone wrote: »

so are you back to just the 2 daughters now as well?
/B]

which one found him dead, slumped at the keyboard while still logged in, so she kindly let the forum members know that he'd passed away (from an overdose, was it)...?

nannytone_2

he has twins as well now! and a son.... notice he never gives the son anything
maybe he doesnt get enough benefit ti chuck him a few quid

FBaby

Going back to the original thread, why should there be transitional protection? They clearly can do ok without the tax credits, leaving off their salary and what is over £16K and then apply again when it has reached that amount.

Transitional protection should be for those only who can show evidence that they will really struggle until they can make changes to their lives (ie. moving to cheaper accommodation etc....) for a limited time, not for people who are doing so well, they can afford to put money aside.

zagfles

FBaby wrote: »

Going back to the original thread, why should there be transitional protection? They clearly can do ok without the tax credits, leaving off their salary and what is over £16K and then apply again when it has reached that amount.

Transitional protection should be for those only who can show evidence that they will really struggle until they can make changes to their lives (ie. moving to cheaper accommodation etc....) for a limited time, not for people who are doing so well, they can afford to put money aside.

Right - so instead of saving they should get a few payday loans, buy widescreen tellys, get the max Sky packages etc so they are up to their eyes in debt, then they'll be "struggling" and so eligible for transitional protection.

Whereas if they live frugally and manage to save, the state should reap the benefits of their savings.