Support for mortgage interest benefit cut by thousands of pounds

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The government would still have to make sure that person is actually entitled to the amount the banks say they are.

There are certain benefits you need to be on to be eligible, so the government would have to make sure the person is on all those benefits and therefore qualifies for the payment the bank states they do. So it's just the same amount of work to verify the banks calculation.

Will the banks inform the government when the person claiming SMI is no longer eligible? How would they know?

They must have to check they are eligible now the only difference is that the bank would tell them the amount to pay

ILW

silvercar wrote: »

Does the same apply to tenants who lose their jobs?

The difference is that a tenant has not taken out a massive loan which they cannot repay, and still expect to keep the asset.

StevieJ

silvercar wrote: »

Does the same apply to tenants who lose their jobs?

It seems to be the economics of greed and envy, I don't care if it costs more just as long as we don't pay their mortgages, but we all know what is actually behind it, don't we?

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

They must have to check they are eligible now the only difference is that the bank would tell them the amount to pay

Yes, but the bank does not have all the persons benefit details, therefore cannot tell the government how much to pay. That's my point.

If benefit circumstances change, how will the bank know to tell the government to pay differently?

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yes, but the bank does not have all the persons benefit details, therefore cannot tell the government how much to pay. That's my point.

If benefit circumstances change, how will the bank know to tell the government to pay differently?

I thought you were entitled to get your interest paid or not all the banks do is tell government the amount of interest

ILW

StevieJ wrote: »

It seems to be the economics of greed and envy, I don't care if it costs more just as long as we don't pay their mortgages, but we all know what is actually behind it, don't we?

No, can you explain.

PasturesNew

Insurance policies are flawed. e.g. often one of the terms is "You have to have been continuously employed, in a permanent job, for 6 months before any claim". Something that means many people could never claim on their insurance.

Also, look at that again.... if you are working, then are laid off, and your insurance kicks in... but then you get the chance of 3 months' work (say a Xmas job), then once that's over you can't go back to claiming on the insurance again as you stopped claiming, did a temp job, now are back on the dole and no longer 'qualify' to claim.

It'd be good if there were one "catch all" insurance policy available that would work for everybody. Paying out, say, after a month for one year.

I never used to have insurance because I wasn't in "a permanent job for 6 months" half the time.

Jonbvn

PasturesNew wrote: »

But it's not, except about £10k. But, also, I wouldn't have known that.

But what's to stop you moving some of the money now?

Ic1male

mitchaa wrote: »

Those that have housing benefit or LHA paid do not make any money but those on ISMI can potentially make a fortune. The government should therefore apply a levy on the sale of the home when it sold as I think it is wrong that people can make money/wealth out of this. Depending on how long you have been getting the mortgage paid depends on how much levy the government applies.

It's a crazy system along with the LHA system.

Good job its going to be cut along with everything else next few years.

FTBFun

ILW wrote: »

Anyone with an existing mortgage should already have the insurance in place.

Really?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/may/14/competition-commission-ppi-sale-ban