Universal Credit 16k+ savings transistional protection?

FBaby

zagfles wrote: »

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.

Indeed, how is that any different to anyone else who saves? If my husband and I were to lose our job, pass 6 months, we would be entitled to nothing at all and that for a very long time because of all the investments we have made to support ourselves once retired. We could have the life of the riches if we stop paying in these investments.

Struggling to see how this situation is any different but for the fact that some rely on tax credits to build their investment, others their earnt income.

zagfles

FBaby wrote: »

Indeed, how is that any different to anyone else who saves? If my husband and I were to lose our job, pass 6 months, we would be entitled to nothing at all and that for a very long time because of all the investments we have made to support ourselves once retired. We could have the life of the riches if we stop paying in these investments.

Struggling to see how this situation is any different but for the fact that some rely on tax credits to build their investment, others their earnt income.

You don't "need" 6 months contribution based JSA then, do you? Unless you can show you'd struggle without it?

The benefits system isn't and never has been based purely on need. It's based on a set of rules, and if those rules change, it's normal to provide transitional protection.

jacques_chirac

Morglin wrote: »

There are few jobs up North, so what would be the point?

I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic here or not? There are plenty of jobs 'up North', in fact some industries are even seeing a skills shortage and having to recruit overseas.

Morglin

No, I wasn't - I was just going by endless comments, by some Northeners, that all the jobs are down South, and they cannot find any.

If there are plenty of jobs up there, then great.

Lin

tinkledom

Morglin wrote: »

There are few jobs up North, so what would be the point?

I don't see why Southeners should be forced to move North anyway - bring back Fair Rents Officers to stop the extortionate private rentals, build more affordable housing, and disperse some immigrants out of the South, as they have no ties to it anyway.

Lin

There are few jobs in the South East too. Fair Rents Officers - never happen. There would be one almighty crash of the Buy to Let market.


Rents in the South East & London, like anywhere else, are governed by market forces. People will buy and people will rent no matter what the price/value is.
Affordable homes? This has been put on hold in many parts of the South East. The councils are being threatened with compensation claims from angry homeowners who have seen their property drop in value as soon as one of these schemes gets off the ground. Who on earth would buy a £1/2 million home only to find that the council have forced the developer to build 'affordable homes, with many being built to accommodate the housing lists, all around their home? This has happened on many new estates and people are up in arms about it + they cite the increase in crime, anti social behaviour and drug abuse to these 'new homes'. I have seem it first hand.

FBaby

zagfles wrote: »

You don't "need" 6 months contribution based JSA then, do you? Unless you can show you'd struggle without it?

The benefits system isn't and never has been based purely on need. It's based on a set of rules, and if those rules change, it's normal to provide transitional protection.

We do agree on this. It IS a pity that benefits are based on poorly thought rules rather than need. Indeed, my husband wouldn't need 6 months JSA and we wouldn't claim just like OP wouldn't need transition protection and therefore shouldn't think they are entitled to it.

zagfles

FBaby wrote: »

We do agree on this.

I very much doubt that.

It IS a pity that benefits are based on poorly thought rules rather than need.

The benefits rules are far better thought out than the simplistic view they should be based just on need. Someone with sky high debts has greater need than someone with no debts. Should they get more? What do you think would happen if they did?

Indeed, my husband wouldn't need 6 months JSA and we wouldn't claim just like OP wouldn't need transition protection and therefore shouldn't think they are entitled to it.

Do you need your tax allowance? Do you need free NHS treatment? Do you need the taxpayer to pay for visits to your GP? Do you need the taxpayer to pay for your kids' education?

You pay towards the state according to rules defined by govt, and you receive benefits from the state according to rules defined by the govt. Anyone who looks down on those who receives cash benefits from the state they don't "need" yet is quite happy to take non cash benefits from the state they don't "need" (eg free NHS treatment, free education) is a complete hypocrite. As are those who arrange their affairs to minimise tax yet look down on those who arrange their affairs to maximise benefits.

CRITCHK

Hi sorry I did not reply earlier been busy with work and family life! Thanks for all your comments and advice and wow did not realise there would be so many replies.
For your info my husband and I both used to work very hard 7 days a week and late nights when we were younger and have payed off our mortgage so no housing costs. We saved the money when we were working and do not save anything now. We have a very modest lifestyle. We both got made redundant and had to start again at work and are in low paid jobs part time although we work 60 hours a week between us. I am a non tax payer and pay a small amount of NI a couple of pounds a month (will this qualify me for a pension?) We get just over £500 a month (no where near 11k a year) WTC and CTC combined. We both have ISA and Pension we wanted the ISA for emergency funds or if we were too sick and wanted to retire early. We earn over 15k between us, but pay into pension and give to charity which you can take the gross amount off your CTC figure for both. This keeps us around the 15k level. (we earn a few thousand above that figure)
We would not be able to manage if we did not get the CTC / WTC and this is why I am worried about the future. Sounds like there will be transitional protect, but not if you have over 16k in savings so am considering putting more in pensions to reduce savings to below 6k. We need to sort something out for our future as never been in final salary scheme and only ever had personal pension.

FBaby

You pay towards the state according to rules defined by govt, and you receive benefits from the state according to rules defined by the govt. Anyone who looks down on those who receives cash benefits from the state they don't "need" yet is quite happy to take non cash benefits from the state they don't "need" (eg free NHS treatment, free education) is a complete hypocrite.

No they are not when they pay a lot more into the purse even when they don't use the services (and then taxed again for not using the service). Those working who pay towards free healthcare don't have a choice but to pay, so how does need become an issue (as opposed to taking when you don't need to take)?

stevemLS

tinkledom wrote: »

There are few jobs in the South East too. Fair Rents Officers - never happen. There would be one almighty crash of the Buy to Let market.


Rents in the South East & London, like anywhere else, are governed by market forces. People will buy and people will rent no matter what the price/value is.
Affordable homes? This has been put on hold in many parts of the South East. The councils are being threatened with compensation claims from angry homeowners who have seen their property drop in value as soon as one of these schemes gets off the ground. Who on earth would buy a £1/2 million home only to find that the council have forced the developer to build 'affordable homes, with many being built to accommodate the housing lists, all around their home? This has happened on many new estates and people are up in arms about it + they cite the increase in crime, anti social behaviour and drug abuse to these 'new homes'. I have seem it first hand.

Give us one, just one, example of a successful claim for compensation on this basis.

There is no legal cause of action here and local authorities are not daft, they know that this is the case.

That is different to a council deciding not to go ahead with a scheme after consulting.