Fantastic comment piece from the Times on the giveaway to mortgage holders

carolt

Goodness me - go away for a day and find we've been moved house!

Couldn't find the Board anywhere!

Anyway, humble apologies if this was posted yesterday, and I couldn't find it among all the reinstated threads/threads about new board etc, but if not, this is SO worth reading.

In fact, this man could be me, he so expresses my feelings on the subject:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5303732.ece

silvercar

"Moreover, they have tired to reassure taxpayers that the mortgage rescue plan will only be available for first homes, not second homes or buy-to-let properties. Yet many people have taken out large loans on their main homes because it is the easiest way to fund villas in Spain, buy-to-let portfolios, or through irresponsibly grand home improvements. Middle-class !!!!lessness derives from the same greed and impatience as does working-class !!!!lessness - it just comes in nicer, Farrow & Ball colours."

Another well thought out policy then.

ad9898_3

silvercar wrote: »

"Moreover, they have tired to reassure taxpayers that the mortgage rescue plan will only be available for first homes, not second homes or buy-to-let properties. Yet many people have taken out large loans on their main homes because it is the easiest way to fund villas in Spain, buy-to-let portfolios, or through irresponsibly grand home improvements. Middle-class !!!!lessness derives from the same greed and impatience as does working-class !!!!lessness - it just comes in nicer, Farrow & Ball colours."

Another well thought out policy then.

The laughable thing is, Clown was wanting us to think last week he had 'saved the mortgage market' turns out that he means only 9000:rotfl:, the guy has no credibility whatsoever.

He wants to seen to be doing something but, in effect does nothing.

PasturesNew

What I want to know is: where are their insurance policies? It used to be virtually compulsory to take out an insurance policy to cover your mortgage if you were out of work.

Now, I know from experience that they aren't possible for everybody, because of their small print. e.g. the ones I tried to get you had to be continuously employed for 6 months prior to any claim in a permanent job, so that would exclude contractors and the self-employed. . . but a lot of the people being laid off were in permanent jobs and had been employed. So where were their insurance policies?

I had an insurance policy most of the time even though I knew I didn't qualify for a pay out right then, I kept it running in case I ever made it 6 months into a job before being laid off.... so why don't these people have them?

Maybe in the short-term the Govt could have paid out the LHA rate for their circumstances.

Really2

PasturesNew wrote: »

What I want to know is: where are their insurance policies? It used to be virtually compulsory to take out an insurance policy to cover your mortgage if you were out of work.

.

I am not sure that is true, I do through choice.
It is for life and building cover i don't think it has been for income.

PasturesNew

Really2 wrote: »

I am not sure that is true, I do through choice.
It is for life and building cover i don't think it has been for income.

Life isn't compulsory. I have never had life cover.

BlondeHeadOn

I think quite a lot of them have been claimed for under the 'mis-sold PPI' banner!

That's what happended to our mortgage insurance - turned out it wasn't worth the paper it was written on, and we got out dosh back (after some argey-bargey with the bank).

They've had such a bad press recently I'm not sure how many people still have or take out mortgage insurances?

Really2

PasturesNew wrote: »

Life isn't compulsory. I have never had life cover.

I think it is very much urged on a joint mortgage.

But as you can see if life is not compulsory neither would income protection be.

I just went off your comment "virtualy compulsory"

kennyboy66_2

It could have been written by someone on this site.

Unfortunately the figures don't really add up.
If its going to cost £1bn and only help 9000 people then that suggests they are getting £111k in this mortgage interest deferal.

Even if we assume that all those people had £400k mortgages and did nothing for 2 years you can't get anywhere near £1bn.

It has never been compulsory to take out unemployment or critical illness insurance (I have never bothered). Anyone who thinks it is has probably been at the end of a commission hungry tied salesman. The insurance products have usually been terrible value. Its one of those areas where social insurance through the state actually should work out better for everyone (in theory!).

While life insurance was never compulsory, some mortgage companies used to make it a condition of their mortgage.

It's not the greatest policy in the world and looks like it was thrown together to grab a headline but to cost £lbn would probably have to 'help' closer to 100,000 people for the following reasons.

1) The first portion of interest is paid anyway (upto £150k or whatever).
2) hardly anyone will be using this for the full 2 years.
3) This policy was for deferred interest - so only if the householder gets repossessed does the taxpayer pick up the tab.

There are plenty of areas where the "middle class" milk the state, education and health care being the main ones.

Usually very little comment there though.

carolt

kennyboy66 wrote: »

It could have been written by someone on this site.

Unfortunately the figures don't really add up.
If its going to cost £1bn and only help 9000 people then that suggests they are getting £111k in this mortgage interest deferal.

Even if we assume that all those people had £400k mortgages and did nothing for 2 years you can't get anywhere near £1bn.

It has never been compulsory to take out unemployment or critical illness insurance (I have never bothered). Anyone who thinks it is has probably been at the end of a commission hungry tied salesman. The insurance products have usually been terrible value. Its one of those areas where social insurance through the state actually should work out better for everyone (in theory!).

While life insurance was never compulsory, some mortgage companies used to make it a condition of their mortgage.

It's not the greatest policy in the world and looks like it was thrown together to grab a headline but to cost £lbn would probably have to 'help' closer to 100,000 people for the following reasons.

1) The first portion of interest is paid anyway (upto £150k or whatever).
2) hardly anyone will be using this for the full 2 years.
3) This policy was for deferred interest - so only if the householder gets repossessed does the taxpayer pick up the tab.

There are plenty of areas where the "middle class" milk the state, education and health care being the main ones.

Usually very little comment there though.

Why, do the "middle classes" (your quote marks) get sick more or have more children?

Or am I missing a trick here? (And yes, I know the rich may choose to go private - but the poor? Hardly.)

cheap_charlie

PasturesNew wrote: »

What I want to know is: where are their insurance policies? It used to be virtually compulsory to take out an insurance policy to cover your mortgage if you were out of work.

Now, I know from experience that they aren't possible for everybody, because of their small print. e.g. the ones I tried to get you had to be continuously employed for 6 months prior to any claim in a permanent job, so that would exclude contractors and the self-employed. . . but a lot of the people being laid off were in permanent jobs and had been employed. So where were their insurance policies?

I had an insurance policy most of the time even though I knew I didn't qualify for a pay out right then, I kept it running in case I ever made it 6 months into a job before being laid off.... so why don't these people have them?

Maybe in the short-term the Govt could have paid out the LHA rate for their circumstances.

Try getting insurance for a mortgage if you are self-employed and have a long-term health problem.

One of the reasons I am now stuck with a mortgage I can barely pay following the unexpected death of my husband.

I am sure some of you will say it was to be expected given his health problem, but it was still a terrible shock to me.

It's all very well for people to wag the finger and say "get insurance" but getting it and then getting a payout isn't always as easy as some would suggest.

ETA - I do have buildings cover