Support for Mortgage Interest Changes

Deepmistrust

andyandflo wrote: »

Yes why not if they can't afford the payments without my money that I pay in tax to help them!

So by that logic, then no one should have any of their basic needs met, if it means state intervention? (Yes, housing is a basic need - there is no reason to make people homeless on the basis of they may have some equity in their property that has accumlated though house price rises, I'm wondering how many of your spouted opinions have come through any type of learned knowledge, facts, or research? None, I bet.

No they can get full housing benefit as long as they have no more than £6000 in savings ( under 60 rate).

Cheaper? It would be if those with savings/equity over £6000 used it to pay the rent and not claim benefit at all!!

You clearly have no idea about the effects or consequences of homelessness, financial and otherwise, I refer to my earlier comment.

One final point before I go to bed. I would suggest that the council start a massive housing programme. That way anybody having to rent, would do so in a council owned property, which would cost the Government/Council NIL!!!

You sir, are a buffoon.

The cost of building these homes is already in place with the local authorities. Money that was raised over the years after selling off council property under the right to buy scheme. They have never been able to touch it - now is the time!!!

Ah I see, so sell off some houses really cheaply, then build more where? That's your answer? Gee wow, why don't you just ring up Cameron, and tell him you have a wonderful idea about creating more social housing. Go on, he might even make you a *special* advisor or something. No one would ever have thought of the provision of affordable homes before.


OK maybe in time only the 'wealthier' amongst us will own property whilst the rest rent. This so called 'expectation' of being able to own your own property can only be said for those that can without difficulty, pay for it. Why are we all expecting to be 'property owners' that some expect the government to subsidise?

Ah I see, knew it wouldn't be long before we reached your real gripe. Face it, you just don't like it that the working classes own property.

You've lost the plot, you have forgotton what the role of government is (unsurprising really, as even the government often forgets what it's role should be) - it is not to look after the interests of the banks, but the welfare of it's citizens.

Look to the continent - how many actually own their own property in France?

Face facts. Even the most pandering of governments (to banks) would be hard pushed to get away (like the 80's) of sitting back and watch as thousands or millions of people lost their homes.

Why do you repeatadly ignore consequence, never mind welfare and rights?

Who is discussing France? France has their own set of problems, and deal with them according. Or does one size really fit all?

Deepmistrust

andyandflo wrote: »

Please read the other posts!!

It would be cheaper if any equity they have is used to pay the rent.

And you have to question if you really need to live in a property with 3 beds if a 2 bed rented flat would suffice.

The only people to benefit from your ridiculous idea, is Landlords.

Since when should government look after the interests of Landlords over that of citizens who have lost their jobs and struggling to keep their homes?

Deepmistrust

Ruth wrote: »

There are even more flaws in the SMI system than I've alluded to.

If someone has equity in their property - even if it's 99% - then they still get SMI if they have no savings.

But if they have savings, they won't get SMI.

The system positively discourages the accumulation of savings to enable you to pay your own mortgage.

And I actually agree with part of what andyandflo says. It is morally wrong for people who have equity in their homes to have their financial asset defended for them at taxpayers' expense. It would be far more appropriate for any SMI payment to become a second charge on the borrower's property, so that if they subsequently sell up and realise a profit, the taxpayer gets their fair share.

That doesn't lead to any financial hardship for the SMI claimant. It simply reduces the long-term cost of SMI to a very small amount, because SMI is lent, not given.

Far more sensible than what is going to happen in October.

I'm less concerned with who owns the equity, than his idea that people should after losing their jobs, then sell their houses in order to survive.

The charge is a secondary issue (not one I particular disagree with anyway - there is a valid argument in it's favour).

But the fact remains the government has a duty to assist people NOT to be homeless.

andyandflo

Deepmistrust wrote: »

I'm less concerned with who owns the equity, than his idea that people should after losing their jobs, then sell their houses in order to survive.

The charge is a secondary issue (not one I particular disagree with anyway - there is a valid argument in it's favour).

But the fact remains the government has a duty to assist people NOT to be homeless.

Hey at last someone who is able to see the wood for the trees. Yes Yes I agree with that comment of Ruth's, SMI paid should be recovered out of the equity if there is one and I would go further, that even if there isn't any it should still be charged against any future equity. Thereby making SMI a loan not a handout. A wonderful idea - I wish I had though of it.

andyandflo

Deepmistrust wrote: »

The only people to benefit from your ridiculous idea, is Landlords.

Since when should government look after the interests of Landlords over that of citizens who have lost their jobs and struggling to keep their homes?

Not really if they embarked now on a full scale plan of the local council's building 1/2/3/4 bed flats with money they already have through the Right to Buy scheme

Deepmistrust

andyandflo wrote: »

Not really if they embarked now on a full scale plan of the local council's building 1/2/3/4 bed flats with money they already have through the Right to Buy scheme

I think, I've read enough witterings for now.

andyandflo

Deepmistrust wrote: »

Face facts. Even the most pandering of governments (to banks) would be hard pushed to get away (like the 80's) of sitting back and watch as thousands or millions of people lost their homes.

Why do you repeatadly ignore consequence, never mind welfare and rights?

Who is discussing France? France has their own set of problems, and deal with them according. Or does one size really fit all?

1. They wouldn't be losing their homes, they would be losing their houses. All they would be doing is exchanging a mortgaged property with a rented on. A home can be made anywhere!
There would be no homelessness. If there weren't enough rental properties around, get your local council to build council flats with the money they already have set aside for such a time. These would be subsidised at cost only.

2. Yes the Government do have a responsibility to put a roof over us. But not that gives the individual a financial advantage. He/she get's that through their own endeavours.

3. Welfare & Rights. Where does self responsibility come into it?
The government should be seen as a last chance option only after you have done everything that they consider you should have done to put your own life in order. The Benefit system has become a way of life in many many respects and it has to stop now!

As I have said before, if you can afford it have it if not lose it!!
I have no problem with the working class owning property, the word is owning! Not with debts attached that they expect others to pay for!
No, they will provide the basic needs - the word is basic!!

LizzieS_2

The principle behind this one is probably the same as the savings limit of 16K - more houses should contain equity than do not. By releasing the equity, in many cases the claimants will have too much capital to claim.

It is the usual of punishing people for trying instead of making those work who never have done.