Interest rates 'may hit 8pc' in two years

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

Sorry, you singled out owners as getting tax payers help on houses they could not afford to keep repayments up on.
I was pointing out it is not only them, renters also get the same type of help to keep a roof over their head.

In response to Hamish talking about savers compensation.

You have picked me up on a point, presumably because it's me, and gone off on a tangent about something completely different.

Hamish talked about compensation for savers, why should they have it, or along those lines.

I said homeowners receive it, and he's fine with that, and encouraged it.

I never talked about renters. They don't make any profit from the house, as savers would, and homeowners would.

End of this one for me, you are just dragging things into other areas which make no sense in relevance to what we were talking about until you turned up.

Really2

sjaypink wrote: »

What is 'HB'?

Housing benefit,

So for the sake of the comparison, will people be enraged when it goes down it will not cover some peoples mortgage payments?

So if some of benefited last year it is most surly going to the detriment of people this year.

Owners and renters get similar help when in trouble, that was the basis of my point really

lemonjelly

Pedants note.

You cannot get housing benefit on a mortgage. Housing benefit can only help meet rental payments, where there is a genuine legal liability to make rental payments. & it is means tested, so you only qualify if your income/savings are sufficiently low.

People who qualify for JSA/IS (another means tested benefit) may get help with the interest payments on their mortgage. If you don't qualify for IS/JSA, you get nothing.

(That said, I think Graham is referring to the mortgage rescue scheme, the fact that the waiting period for help with mortgage costs was reduced from 39 weeks, to 13 weeks, and also the ultra low interest rates being a form of assistance to OO's, which is assisting them, possibly unfairly & at the expense of others.)

Now, as you were...;)

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I

Hamish talked about compensation for savers, why should they have it, or along those lines.

My point is GD depending what they have, they will also get the same benefits.

To save you need to have a job in general, to not be able to pay a mortgage you could afford usually means you don't have one.
It is the same if you rent and cant afford it through loss of income.

Savers are not being punished, just that those in trouble are being helped? helping those in trouble has been described as a caring society on here before.

Why does that change if you are a home owner?

sjaypink

Really2 wrote: »

Housing benefit,

So for the sake of the comparison, will people be enraged when it goes down it will not cover some peoples mortgage payments?

So if some of benefited last year it is most surly going to the detriment of people this year.

Owners and renters get similar help when in trouble, that was the basis of my point really

I thought thats what you meant.... so, I don't know if you're confused or if I'm reading it wrong....

Really2 wrote: »

My farther was made unemployed last year,
1) he was not getting 6% IO payments. (I think it was about 4%
2) he had all the HB removed from is pension credit (64)

So in reality he was worse off when on HB as they could have been paying less of if just paying the interest on his pension.

You make it sound like your father got both (hb & mortgage), and you are comparing under which he was better off?

ETA: lj just covered it I think :-)

Graham_Devon

lemonjelly wrote: »

(That said, I think Graham is referring to the mortgage rescue scheme, the fact that the waiting period for help with mortgage costs was reduced from 39 weeks, to 13 weeks, and also the ultra low interest rates being a form of assistance to OO's, which is assisting them, possibly unfairly & at the expense of others.)

Now, as you were...;)

Yup, hence using the 6% thing and talking consistently about homeowners!

Like I said earlier, dunno why housing benefit was bought into it.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

My point is GD depending what they have, they will also get the same benefits.

To save you need to have a job in general, to not be able to pay a mortgage you could afford usually means you don't have one.
It is the same if you rent and cant afford it through loss of income.

Savers are not being punished, just that those in trouble are being helped? helping those in trouble has been described as a caring society on here before.

Why does that change if you are a home owner?

I dunno. I haven't a clue what you are even talking about anymore.

Really2

sjaypink wrote: »

I thought thats what you meant.... so, I don't know if you're confused or if I'm reading it wrong....
You make it sound like your father got both (hb & mortgage), and you are comparing under which he was better off?

ETA: lj just covered it I think :-)

It is me not knowing the names.

But yes they were worse off having the mortgage paid than they would have been paying it thier selves out of pension credit.

It was 100% deducted from their pension credit. So yes they paid some mortgage off, but in term it was all out of their pension so if they had chose to do it their selves I dare say they would have paid just the IO and had more to live on.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I dunno. I haven't a clue what you are even talking about anymore.

Surprise,

You are failing to see why people get the benefit GD.

If you cant see why people get it and how different their situation is to saver I can't help you.

I think all of them would rather not be in the situation of having the tax payer support. Same as the renters in the same boat, they would rather have a job.

So compare a saver to someone who has lost their job and now who looks like they are punished by all of the current situation?

Really2

Anyway back to the thread,

Why do people ignore this when looking at the current problem?

Last time it was near (current BOE rate) was when we had a massive budget deficit also. Just after the second world war.


it never got over 5% betwen 1930 - 1955 25 years in total. As you see massive deficits are not very inflationary.

I stick by we are likely to see wage inflation in an inflationary environment.
I put up an example of near where we are now (above).

I am now really interested in someone showing me a time of sustained inflation that has not lead to wage inflation.
Or a similar situation to now which has lead to inflation but wage inflation dragging a far way behind.