How much should you put aside for emergencies

[sutty27]

So, someone working full time and claiming any IWB should not have any savings or ability to save. According to you. Is that correct?

 

I think they are allowed to have some saving, but over a set amount they wouldn't get in work benefits, if benefit enables them to continue saving they are clearly getting too much in benefits, when times are hard and they are claiming benefits they should be dipping into savings.

[Cyclone]

So once gone, the savings can't be replenished... No ability to save. Because they're claiming WTC or CTC or whatever.

[runningman1]

So once gone, the savings can't be replenished... No ability to save. Because they're claiming WTC or CTC or whatever.

 

That's what he is saying yes. It isn't difficult to follow.

 

It is his position that welfare should be for sustainence only, to meet your basics (food, drink, bills, rent etc) and not to feather your nest with savings.

 

Is that clear enough or would you like to reword the same question again?.

[I1L2T3]

That's what he is saying yes. It isn't difficult to follow.

 

It is his position that welfare should be for sustainence only, to meet your basics (food, drink, bills, rent etc) and not to feather your nest with savings.

 

Is that clear enough or would you like to reword the same question again?.

 

This ignores the fact that people have different liabilities and spend at different rates.

 

Some people if given a certain level of support would be able to save while others given the same support would blow the whole lot and still need more support.

 

If somebody can save and prepare themselves better for future difficulties why would that be a bad thing? Seems like a good thing to me.

[sutty27]

That's what he is saying yes. It isn't difficult to follow.

 

It is his position that welfare should be for sustainence only, to meet your basics (food, drink, bills, rent etc) and not to feather your nest with savings.

 

Is that clear enough or would you like to reword the same question again?.

 

Thanks for that, there are only so many ways one can answer the same question, not sure if cyclone actually doesn't get it or whether he is just playing a game.

 

---------- Post added 28-04-2016 at 08:31 ----------

 

This ignores the fact that people have different liabilities and spend at different rates.

 

Some people if given a certain level of support would be able to save while others given the same support would blow the whole lot and still need more support.

 

If somebody can save and prepare themselves better for future difficulties why would that be a bad thing? Seems like a good thing to me.

 

In both cases it sounds like they are both being given too much.

[Cyclone]

That's what he is saying yes. It isn't difficult to follow.

I'm just trying to make sure I've understood. Wouldn't want him to change his mind in a few posts time, which is normally what he does.

It is his position that welfare should be for sustainence only, to meet your basics (food, drink, bills, rent etc) and not to feather your nest with savings.

He can't explain how this can work though, since everyone has different circumstances, and even when on a tight budget it's possible (for example) to go bargain hunting for food and spend a bit less than was budgeted.

 

And he refuses to consider the impact of any financial shock to someone who is in work and claiming benefits. If they are unable to save at all on a normal basis. Then what do they do when the boiler needs repairs or the washing machine breaks down...

 

---------- Post added 28-04-2016 at 10:38 ----------

 

In both cases it sounds like they are both being given too much.

 

Only to you.

 

Sound financial management is something we should expect all adults to try to do. You however want to punish those who claim in work benefits for doing so.

Should they find a way to cut the electricity bill for example (maybe switching suppliers) then you'd reduce the amount of support so that they didn't benefit.

Which would of course require an individual and ongoing assessment for each claimant, which would cost us far more than it could ever save.

The whole idea is ludicrous, pointless and backwards.

[Solomon1]

There are various recommendations about the minimum that people should have in savings in case of unexpected expenses, 2 months pay is a common one that I've seen

 

Sounds about right

 

Most illnesses sorted in that time

[sutty27]

Only to you.

 

 

I already posted the evidence which clearly shows its the opinion of the majority, you are clearly in the minority and wrong.

 

---------- Post added 28-04-2016 at 11:00 ----------

 

 

Sound financial management is something we should expect all adults to try to do.

 

Yep and that involves saving whilst you are earning enough to save and using those saving when you are unable to earn the money you need. With the state only helping out when your circumstances make it impossible to earn the money you need. It shouldn't involve the state giving people more free money than they need especially when that free money had to be taken away from the people that are working hard and trying to save for their own future.

[Cyclone]

Sounds about right

 

Most illnesses sorted in that time

 

There are plenty of other things to consider though. Job loss. Unexpected cost for something (new roof required urgently, or catastrophic engine failure resulting in car write off, boiler failure that can't be repaired, etc...)

[Hogg]

In general, at least three months salary. However, if you are on a reasonable salary, in this day and age it makes a great deal of sense to save as much as you can against the day that you may need to help your children buy their first property.