Support for mortgage interest benefit cut by thousands of pounds

silvercar

On other threads, some people seem to equate paying an interest only mortgage with renting from the bank. Suddenly when we talk of SMI its forgotten. Surely if you are renting from the bank you are as entitled to have your rent paid as someone who is renting from a landlord?

carolt

silvercar wrote: »

I broadly agree but,

I agree with most of your points, also.

But:

pensioners do get kicked out of their homes if they're renting a family home and can no longer afford the rent - LHA will be calculated on their current needs not on sentimental factors like they're old and have lots of happy memories there. Whereas the delicate feelings of pensioners with mortgages must, apparently be taken into account. Why?

And don't forget that getting kicked out of a family home is not only distressing for pensioners - it's also distressing for young families, for example - but I don't see you crying for a change of rental legislation in this country to scrap short-term tenancies and allow secure long-term rentals as they have in Europe, say.

And re your earlier point, round our way, 200K might not buy you a 5 bed house, but in much of the country, it would. Or to put it another way, a single person can claim up to 200K - outside London, they would not need a mortgage of anything like that to buy a house sufficient for their needs - why should a single person be entitled to such a large amount of support, anywhere in the country?

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well this is just going to go round and round as no ones actually willing to discuss the actual fairness issue. Just willing to pull people up for wanting people chucked out of their homes, and just willing to state what it's for. Anything touching on disucssing the problems and fairness issues simply will not be discussed.

I assume you would all be perfectly happy with the government (or your tax) paying off peoples holiday debts, or credit card debts too, so they can keep their credit cards and lifestyle?

The thing you seem to forget is that the vast majority bought their houses as a home not for an investment, just somewhere to live in, most did not get liar loans they have just fallen on hard times. So giving them some help to stay in their house when they do is not any more unfair than paying the rent of someone who isn’t working.

I would not like to pay for someone’s credit card dept and if people commented fraud to get their mortgage and it came be proved they should not get SMI.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Was no different to suggesting everyone claiming SMI is on an interest only mortgage. But hey, that's perfectly acceptable

I don't think that is what he was suggesting I think what he meant, but I may be wrong, is that you can arrange with the bank to pay interest only when you are in trouble.

ILW

ukcarper wrote: »

The thing you seem to forget is that the vast majority bought their houses as a home not for an investment, just somewhere to live in, most did not get liar loans they have just fallen on hard times. So giving them some help to stay in their house when they do is not any more unfair than paying the rent of someone who isn’t working.

I would not like to pay for someone’s credit card dept and if people commented fraud to get their mortgage and it came be proved they should not get SMI.

What you do not take into account is that most that cannot pay their mortgage, must have taken out a loan or have been living a lifestyle that did not allow them to save any money towards any periods of unemployment. The fact that the state will pay actively encourages people not to save for lifes eventualities and fosters an attitude that others should pick up the pieces.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

The thing you seem to forget is that the vast majority bought their houses as a home not for an investment, just somewhere to live in, most did not get liar loans they have just fallen on hard times. So giving them some help to stay in their house when they do is not any more unfair than paying the rent of someone who isn’t working.

I've already stated there needs to be help. Infact, I dunno how many times I have stated this now. 2 years I have said.

Yet it's back to the old adage of "they require help". Yes, I agree. but this is more than help for many. It's been going on for years.

What I don't like reading is the usual response of "everyone on SMI will need their rent paid so it's cheaper to do SMI". Yet carol's extreme example was pulled down instantly.

It's just as extreme to say everyone currently on SMI will need their rent paid if they have to sell up.

Everytime a question is asked, its back to the same old "you want to see people chucked out on the streets, they will all need their rent paid".

Many have equity. We have just been through a massive boom where many will have seen their house rise 3x in value in just 10 years.

The problem with this whole system is the person who cannot afford their home, get's the loan paid for by the state (depending on circs, they may get capital paid too...indeed there was one write up in a paper whereby the 55yr old was getting so much in interest it was actually reducing his repayment mortgage term). They then get their home basically gifted to them.

Can't be bothered really goign over it all again. It's all ignored anyway!

The credit card anaoloy is a good example of what's actually happening here. Buyign a house is a lifestyle choice. 2 years help is more than fair. If you cannot afford your house after that, then why should they be able to carry on their lifestyle choice? Consider over half of those using SMI are 50+, I think it's safe to assume many have remortgaged to release equity before now hence now can't afford their mortgages, again, another lifestyle choice.

chucky

ILW wrote: »

What you do not take into account is that most that cannot pay their mortgage, must have taken out a loan or have been living a lifestyle that did not allow them to save any money towards any periods of unemployment. The fact that the state will pay actively encourages people not to save for lifes eventualities and fosters an attitude that others should pick up the pieces.

is this a fact or is it an assumption on your part?

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well this is just going to go round and round as no ones actually willing to discuss the actual fairness issue. Just willing to pull people up for wanting people chucked out of their homes, and just willing to state what it's for. Anything touching on disucssing the problems and fairness issues simply will not be discussed.

I assume you would all be perfectly happy with the government (or your tax) paying off peoples holiday debts, or credit card debts too, so they can keep their credit cards and lifestyle?

ILW

chucky wrote: »

is this a fact or is it an assumption on your part?

It must be fact, unless you are saying that the claiments have thousands in savings and are still getting their mortgage paid.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I've already stated there needs to be help. Infact, I dunno how many times I have stated this now. 2 years I have said.

Yet it's back to the old adage of "they require help". Yes, I agree. but this is more than help for many. It's been going on for years.

What I don't like reading is the usual response of "everyone on SMI will need their rent paid so it's cheaper to do SMI". Yet carol's extreme example was pulled down instantly.

It's just as extreme to say everyone currently on SMI will need their rent paid if they have to sell up.

Everytime a question is asked, its back to the same old "you want to see people chucked out on the streets, they will all need their rent paid".

Many have equity. We have just been through a massive boom where many will have seen their house rise 3x in value in just 10 years.

The problem with this whole system is the person who cannot afford their home, get's the loan paid for by the state (depending on circs, they may get capital paid too...indeed there was one write up in a paper whereby the 55yr old was getting so much in interest it was actually reducing his repayment mortgage term). They then get their home basically gifted to them.

Can't be bothered really goign over it all again. It's all ignored anyway!

I would hazard a guess that the number who stay on SMI for a very long time is very small and to benefit they would have to have mortgage interest of less that 3.63% other wise the amount of money they own would stay the same.