We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Lender forbearance becoming “a sick joke”
Comments
-
I'd have no problem with that so long as the value of the equity in the house is taken into account when measuring eligibility for benefits under rules about how much in assets you can have while claiming. It seems perfectly sensible.
The problem I have is people being subsidised to hold one particular sort of asset class and then put into a position where they can't afford to get back on their feet. It may seem harsh forcing people to sell but to my mind, it's harsher to force people to remain on benefits who have something to give in the workplace.
I can't see how that would work as the owner wouldn't have access to that money. Perhaps some sort of charge could be placed on property.0 -
I'd have no problem with that so long as the value of the equity in the house is taken into account when measuring eligibility for benefits under rules about how much in assets you can have while claiming. It seems perfectly sensible.
The problem I have is people being subsidised to hold one particular sort of asset class and then put into a position where they can't afford to get back on their feet. It may seem harsh forcing people to sell but to my mind, it's harsher to force people to remain on benefits who have something to give in the workplace.
That viewpoint covers a whole host of benefits, not just SMI. As I said, if SMI was set up similar to housing benefit, then instead of a set amount paid for all (with those on low interest rates able to also pay down mortgages) it would just cover the interest payment part of the mortgage. There would therefore be zero financial gain from SMI above having a roof over their heads - same as HB.0 -
The issue is that lots of the 'priced out' are better paid than those who live in homes they cant pay for.
Then the 'priced out' will just have to work harder and save harder instead of moaning about how unfair it all is on internet forums and opium dens (or whereever the 'priced out' hang out when not on the internet).0 -
Having the interest paid on your mortgage is obviously quite a substantial financial gain.RenovationMan wrote: »There would therefore be zero financial gain from SMI above having a roof over their heads - same as HB.0 -
homelessskilledworker wrote: »I am sorry RM, I just don't buy it:)
Yet again you come out with something like "I pay a lot of tax", along with statements such as "I was at a meeting" or " I was jetting off to to here or there" or "I am top earner".
You do like to give the impression(and work very hard at it) that you are a man of some importance and substance.
The way you articulate yourself and more to the point the way you carry yourself tells me that you are nothing of the sort:)
What are you really, I would go for ex council house owner who did a RTB who has had various sales jobs over the years mixed in with unskilled work.:)
You're absolutely right. You should PM GD, DervProf & Shortchanged and tell them about your discovery and perhaps they'll stop getting so wound up when I post. They can just have a wry smile and ignore me if I mention any of my invented financial info. Simples and everyone is a winner.
0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »Having the interest paid on your mortgage is obviously quite a substantial financial gain.
Yep, but no different from the financial gain from having your rent paid for you via HB.0 -
RenovationMan wrote: »Yep, but no different from the financial benefit of having rent paid via HB.
The two are miles apart.
One is helping you BUY the roof over your head as a private asset.
One is simply putting a roof over your head. One which you will never have any financial hold over.
I'm not sure if you are just looking for argument here or not, as I thought the differences would be clear to everyone.0 -
RenovationMan wrote: »That viewpoint covers a whole host of benefits, not just SMI. As I said, if SMI was set up similar to housing benefit, then instead of a set amount paid for all (with those on low interest rates able to also pay down mortgages) it would just cover the interest payment part of the mortgage. There would therefore be zero financial gain from SMI above having a roof over their heads - same as HB.
I don't see what is special about houses as an asset class that they should be treated separately.
As is so often said on here, housing is a necessity but home ownership is not.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »The two are miles apart.
One is helping you BUY the roof over your head as a private asset.
One is simply putting a roof over your head. One which you will never have any financial hold over.
I'm not sure if you are just looking for argument here or not, as I thought the differences would be clear to everyone.
If it is just paying your interest how is it helping you to buy when you come of smi you will be in the same position you were when you first went on it.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »The two are miles apart.
One is helping you BUY the roof over your head as a private asset.
One is simply putting a roof over your head. One which you will never have any financial hold over.
I'm not sure if you are just looking for argument here or not, as I thought the differences would be clear to everyone.
It only pays the interest. I thought having an interest only mortgage was the same as renting?This is a system account and does not represent a real person. To contact the Forum Team email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards