Anonymous asked in Business & FinancePersonal Finance · 3 weeks ago

You need to spend a lot of your savings before your entitled to benefits?

Do you think this is right or wrong? You basically need to live off your savings before you qualify for receiving benefits. 

So say for example something happens to you where you can no longer work, and you have saved a bit of money from working for so many years, or a family member leaves you a bit of money. Do you think it's fair that you basically need to live off a lot of this money before you are actually entitled to benefits? Or do you think you should get the benefits regardless if you have savings or not? 

12 Answers

  • John P
    Lv 7
    3 weeks ago

    Look at it from the other end. If there were no limit, a millionaire might contrive to get himself 'sacked', then live off his savings and off benefits for a very comfortable lazy life. 

    There has to be a cut-off point somewhere, since benefit money comes from the national purse, accumulated from taxation of various sorts. If you feel that the cut-off point is wrongly set, get a political movement going to change the law. Or approach the existing political parties.

  • F
    Lv 6
    3 weeks ago

    On one hand it seems unfair that people who are careful and save are penalised when they lose their job and have to use up their savings while people who have spent all their money,( probably have a flash car and lots of holidays etc), can get benefits. 

    In the other hand it would be ridiculous to give benefits to people with millions in the bank.  

  • 3 weeks ago

    If you have savings, you don't necessarily need unemployment benefits. 

  • Amy
    Lv 7
    3 weeks ago

    In the US you can get disability benefits no matter what your assets and unearned income. (You can't have much income from work, because you're claiming an inability to work.)

    However, your SSDI benefits might not be much if you haven't worked in the US for at least 10 years.

    The asset limit is on welfare benefits paid to people who don't qualify for any of unemployment or retirement or disability benefits. There are certainly individual cases where not qualifying for those is unfair, e.g. a woman who never worked because her abusive husband didn't allow it. 

    But for the most part, yes it absolutely is fair to limit welfare to only the people who need it.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 3 weeks ago

    Which benefits?  I think it matters.  I don't believe someone should have to clean out their savings before getting unemployment pay.  I can't, however, think of any other types off the top of my head where it would be okay to require savings to be cleaned out.  Maybe a certain level?  But what is included in that?  One person may have a lot of equity in their house and no savings.  Another one may be underwater on their house but have $20k in savings/other investments.  It's not always straight forward.

  • Jenny
    Lv 7
    3 weeks ago

    Government benefits are meant to be your "last resort," not your "first choice."

    It's a difficult concept for a lot of members of the middle class. They look at others who spend every penny and get benefits when hard times hit while people who save their money get "penalized" and are expected to use their savings to survive. Well, everybody has the option of not preparing. Don't save your money but spend it all and make yourself dependent on government benefits that can be reduced or stopped at any time. 

    I think, everybody should aim to avoid collecting benefits by being frugal and saving for emergencies. 

  • Maxi
    Lv 7
    3 weeks ago

    Benefits are a safteynet, they are NOT a lifestyle choice, so yes you are responsible for you and 'disposing' of savings in order to claim is also something that the benefit system looks at, as scamming the public is illegal

  • Anonymous
    3 weeks ago

    It does not work that way unless you mean welfare.

  • A.J.
    Lv 7
    3 weeks ago

    The main problem in the USA is the cost of healthcare. They have barely started discussions to bringing that in line first. There are many things driving that cost. There is discussion of universal health care plans, but it is debated and takes years to implement anything.

    What type of "benefits" are you referring to?

    Each society is a mix of socialism and capitalism. The governments in the USA under a fairly capitalist system ran up over $20 trillion in debt.

  • Tavy
    Lv 7
    3 weeks ago

    Our benefits come out of our taxes in the U.K., as far as I am aware we can have 16K in the bank and still get benefits,, any sum over that then no.

    I think it's fair.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.